You walked right into it.  We often hear the Vatican lambasted for their total ineptitude in PR.  But, notice how quickly a few words, attributed to the Pope, on condoms and a prostitute completely erased all news and comments on the silly, non-productive hour spent by 150 cardinals addressing the Church’s very serious global sex-abuse crisis.  That’s media management.

Brilliant. First rate analysis as usual.

One more point to be made about L’ Osservatore Romano’s leak. According to Fox News reports, the translation into Italian of the remarks gave the impression that the Pope was referring to a FEMALE prostitute and not a male prostitute as was the case in the original German.
Shame on them!

As usual, Jimmy, your analysis is spot on. I can’t believe how deliberately this is being twisted by the press. I wonder if heads will roll at L’Osservatore Romano…

The Popes inflexible position on condoms has led many Christian women to avoid using them with husbands who are HIV positive.  This has led to the epidemic of AIDS in Africa, where in some countries a quarter of the population is infected. 
Condoms can prevent HIV infection and should be used by everyone where the incidence of HIV are high.
The Pope’s ancient views focus on contraception an is primarily designed to combat a decline in the Roman Catholic population, especially in poor countries where families still have 8-10 children…many of whom often go hungry.

“The Popes inflexible position…etc”

Don’t hurt yourself jumping over all those bus-sized premises Evel Knieval.

Thanks for this detailed backgrounder on today’s - imaginative - rumors. I’ve added a link to this post to my take, in A Catholic Citizen in America. The L’Osservatore Romano’s actions seem quite regrettable.

What is the difference between saying it is acceptable to use a condom in this situation as opposed to recommending circumcision http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=circumcision-penis-microbiome-hiv-infection? Both have been shown to reduce incidence of HIV and other diseases. Also, what would be the difference in condom usage and the Church recommending that the male prostitutes take regular antiviral drugs? The pope’s comments aren’t condoning the homosexual acts in and of themselves. Also, regarding married couples where one partner has HIV, condoms still wouldn’t be moral. The marriage act is supposed to be unitive and procreative. With a condom, the act would certainly not be unitive, even if the couple were naturally sterile and unable to procreate. Abstinence for the good of one’s partner would be charity and the only acceptable option. Unlike food, human beings are able to go without sex. Our clergy does it, married couples do it from time to time, singles abstain. While it is a sacrifice, it certainly isn’t impossible.

Well, if this book is just his “personal opinions,” then why bother buying the book??  Why bother reading it?? 

Why bother noting that what he actually said is very important and correct?  After all, even though he was right, it is just his “opinion.”  No need for the pro-condom people to actually listen to him or his reasoning here.

Talk about doing a great disservice—the whole first part of this post does exactly that.

“The Popes inflexible position on condoms has led many Christian women to avoid using them with husbands who are HIV positive.  This has led to the epidemic of AIDS in Africa”

Wrong. The AIDS epidemic arose and spread through indiscriminate, promiscuous and irresponsible sexual behavior. Can we really expect people to be reckless in their sexual behavior, but quite mature and responsible in the use of condoms? How is it that they can learn this reasonable and considered approach to condoms… but somehow cannot be expected to learn a reasonable and considered approach to sex?

I think you’ve been unfair to the BBC report, which says “From what we can tell—and these caveats are important because we need to seek further clarification from the Vatican—his position is now that condoms can sometimes be morally legitimate as a lesser of two evils in the fight against Aids.”  This report also says of its own heading: “Or at least, that’s what we think Pope Benedict has said.” In other words, the report acknowledge that the L’Osservatore Romano article has caused some confusion and now clarification is needed from the Vatican.

I can say that I have been told by two different priests—neither of the dissident sort and one a former St. Blogs member—that the use of a condom in a homosexual act us not a separate sin, over and above the sin of the homosexual act itself (it’s relevant and telling that Pope Benedict specified a male prostitute). Neither went so far as to say “use a condom if you have sex because that’s safer,” though the one who was my personal confessor clearly said to me in the negative that “not using a condom is stupid and not an act of obedience or fidelity or anything else.”

So yeah ... a male prostitute is not committing a sin in the per-se act of condom use and it can reflect sound health concerns, which are not nothing.

I like the Curt Jester’s invocation of the “Ginger Factor” (with apologies to the Far Side.  Just dogs only hear, “Blah blah blah GINGER blah blah blah” so the press only hears the Pope say “Blah blah blah CONDOMS blah blah blah.”

Subtract 50 IQ points whenever the MSM deal with theological matters.

This has, as with his Regensberg Address, been blown way out of proportion. And it boils down to semantics and mistranslation. My comments are in brackets; this text comes from Catholic World Report.

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when [Could perhaps be “if” in the German original.] a male prostitute [really “female prostitute” in the Italian translation; see below] uses a condom, where this 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. [Viz., if a prostitute uses a condom, then she is on her way to thinking of her sexual partner as a human. He does not say that condoms of themselves can make contraceptive or homosexual sex less dehumanizing.] But it [condoms in general, not specifically condoms used to prevent disease] is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.
Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?
She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step [Note: He does not say this “first step” means using condoms.] in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

The Italian translation from L’Osservatore Romano seems better, but it lacks the last ¶ above; my literal translation is in brackets. An important difference is the feminine article una in una prostituta; he refers to a “female prostitute,” not a “male prostitute.”

Vi possono essere singoli casi giustificati [“There can be single justified cases”], ad esempio quando una prostituta utilizza un profilattico [“for example when a (female) prostitute utilizes a prophylactic (‘a medicine or course of action used to prevent disease’ (New Oxford American Dictionary); also: ‘condom’, but this is usually preservativo.)”], e questo può essere il primo passo verso una moralizzazione [“and this can be the first step toward a moralization”], 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 [“a first act of responsibility to redevelop the awareness of the fact that not all is permitted and that one cannot do all that one wants”]. Tuttavia, questo non è il modo vero e proprio per vincere l’infezione dell’Hiv. [“Yet, this is not the true and proper way to overcome the contraction of HIV.”] È veramente necessaria una umanizzazione della sessualità. [“A humanization of sexuality is truly needed.”]

Notice how the Italian is much clearer than the vague, weasel-word-filled English translation.

Does you know of where to find the German original? Thanks

Is it possible that the whole embargo-breaking exercise was designed to sell books?  And the timing—the day of the consistory, which should’ve been the biggest story in Rome this weekend—is certainly peculiar, too.  Weird.  Very weird.

Really, the Pope’s remarks are such a simple and straightforward restatement of Catholic doctrine that sadly, one has to wonder if all this ‘misinterpretation’ is deliberate.

As many others have said, all the Pope is saying if you’re going to commit a robbery, choosing not to kill someone in the process is better than choosing to kill someone.

Hi,
What the Pope said about condom use among prostitutes should not surprise anyone. It has always been part of the official teaching of the Catholic Church. It is not a departure nor an exemption.

Please read these:
http://catholicposition.blog…spot.com/2010/10/why-p-noy-should-go-on-with-his.html

http://catholicposition.blogspot.com/2010/10/why-is-contraception-necessary-outside.html

http://catholicposition.blogspot.com/2010/10/morality-of-giving-emergency.html

Please read the comments page of each of these posts so that you can see where the exchanges of info is going.

I am very thankful that the Pope has already spoken!

I’m sorry, the first link is wrong.

Here is the correct one:
http://catholicposition.blogspot.com/2010/10/why-p-noy-should-go-on-with-his.html

The misinterpretation is intentional.  I have no doubt of that.  The Pope very simply stated that if a prostitute, who is already blatantly violating numerous teachings of the Catholic faith, would use condoms, that may slow the spread of HIV.  NO KIDDING.  The ultimate solution would be for the prostitute to follow the teachings of the Church and find a moral profession.  This is 100% consistent with what the Church has always taught about condoms.

Thank you very much for this excellent clarification, Mr. Akin. It has settled my stomach . . .  a little.

I really hope someone is held responsible for this at L’Osservatore Romano - now we all have to do clean up on the global mess they’ve made.

-sigh-

Prostitutes who use condoms are doing so out of moral responsibility. This is the unequivocal message of Pope Benedict.

Please read this:

http://catholicposition.blogspot.com/2010/10/why-p-noy-should-go-on-with-his.html

Just call him “Pope Rubbers I”

The published pope interview did not say the prostitutes are homosexual.  Male prostitution comes in every variety not the least of which is heterosexual.  Surely the Holy Father knows that.

However you slice it, this was a mistake by the Holy Father.  And, when the most important person in the world makes a mistake, people suffer. 

I do have to note that this is the sort of mistake even Sunday school teachers in the local parish don’t make.  First year teaching, even volunteer noobs learn clarity on touchy subject and important teaching.  How an academic of B16’s stature can get snarled up in this one is beyond me, I’m sure beyond anyone.  It just goes into history’s “What?!” vault with every other unexplainable thing.

Pray for all the orthodox Catholic teachers, parents, and spouses who are about to get an earful from their students, children, and spouses who want to use condoms and are going to get maximum mileage out of this.

Sheesh…no one has even brought up the fact that homosexual sex is not sex because it has no procreative element and therefore no contraceptive element.  Seems sort of important.  Eh, whatever.  Such a world.

Jimmy’s analysis is blunderous to have repeated Janet Smith’s unsubstantiated assertion that the Pope spoke of homosexual prostitution when/if topeLope actually said male (or female) prostitution.  It’s not the same thing.

I’ve read some comments and I think people must be aware that the pope is not saying that using a condom in this case is better than not using a condom. All he is saying is that using a condom show an intention toward safety, so the intention to preserve someone’s life is a good one, and thus shows a first step in the right direction.

Let’s be clear that Pope Benedict is not saying that condoms are a good first step.

“Subtract 50 IQ points whenever the MSM deal with theological matters.”

I respectfully disagree Mark. Choice A) Write a positive story showing how intelligent and compassionate the Pope is and the public (apart from a dedicated few) yawn and ignore it. Choice B) Write a story twisting the Popes words to say the most ridiculously unlikely thing and suddenly people’s heads turn, (“He said WHAT?”) and publication sales go through the roof.

No problem with IQ, just with morals. No problem twisting truth to sell papers, even if it is ‘clever’.

Brilliant Post Jimmy. At last some rational thinking about the Pope’s comments..

I am aware of a paper by Dr. Janet Smith and Steven Long where they criticized the view of Fr. Martin Rhonheimer concerning condom use among prostitues.

I guess now Fr. Rhonheimer is correct. He has his vindication already from the Pope himself.

Read Fr. Rhonheimer’s article:
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/2284

Or you may read this one also:
http://catholicposition.blogspot.com/2010/10/why-p-noy-should-go-on-with-his.html

Why does the Pope discuss the behavior of prostitutes? Why so much ambiguity (to the point that now there is a need for clarification)? Why doesn’t the Pope simply affirm that homosexual acts, and promiscuous behavior are the problem and that the only real solution is to completely abandon them? People are responsible for their choices and actions and they must deal with the consequences. Why doesn’t the Pope just say that a wife of a man infected by HIV should simply not have any sexual contact with him? It is not the Church’s ‘fault’ as some idiots like to frame the conversation. The promiscuous men and women are the ones responsible for HIV any other sexually transmitted disease. Just say it: it is evil (condom, pill) and you must stay away from it! Enough with ambiguity.

Mr Akin stated the following:  “(and I expect the Vatican will be issuing a clarification quite soon).”

The poster Brennis (Nov 21, 2010 6:14 AM (EDT) stated:  “Why does the Pope discuss the behavior of prostitutes? Why so much ambiguity (to the point that now there is a need for clarification)?”

Exactly. 

By the way, Mr. Akin, why did you post so many words in regard to the Pope’s declaration when you expect that the Vatican will soon clarify the Pope’s declaration?

Oh God, why say anything when you know that the Media will twist it :(

Last year while in Africa, Pope Benedict XVI issued a statement in regard to HIV and condoms.

Does anybody recall the following response that was posted by Fr. Z?

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/03/harvard-prof-defends-benedict-xvi-on-condoms-and-aids/

Harvard Researcher agrees with Pope on condoms in Africa [Not a CUA prof, a HARVARD prof.]

Cambridge, Mass., Mar 21, 2009 / 10:11 am (CNA).- Pope Benedict’s recent brief remark against condoms has caused an uproar in the press, but several prominent scientists dedicated to preventing AIDS are defending the Pope, saying he was correct in his analysis. In an interview with CNA, Dr. Edward Green explained that although condoms should work, in theory, they may be “exacerbating the problem” in Africa.

Benedict XVI’s Tuesday comments on condoms were made as part of his explanation of the Church’s two prong approach to fighting AIDS. At one point in his response the Pontiff stressed that AIDS cannot be overcome by advertising slogans and distributing condoms and argued that they “worsen the problem.” The media responded with an avalanche of over 4,000 articles on the subject, calling Benedict a “threat to public health,” and saying that the Catholic Church should “enter the 21st century.”

Senior Harvard Research Scientist for AIDS Prevention, Dr. Edward Green, who is the author of five books, including “Rethinking AIDS Prevention: Learning from Successes in Developing Countries” discussed his support for Pope Benedict XVI’s comments with CNA.

According to Dr. Green, science is finding that the media is actually on the wrong side of the issue.  In fact, Green says that not only do condoms not work, but that they may be “exacerbating the problem” in Africa.

“Theoretically, condoms ought to work,” he explained to CNA, “and theoretically, some condom use ought to be better than no condom use, but that’s theoretically.”

Condom proponents often cite the lack of condom education as the main culprit for higher AIDS rates in Africa but Green disagrees.

After spending 25 years promoting condoms for family planning purposes in Africa, he insists that he’s quite familiar with condom promotion. Yet, he claims that “anyone who worked in family planning knew that if you needed to prevent a pregnancy, say the woman will die, you don’t recommend a condom.”

Green recalls that when the AIDS epidemic hit Africa, the “Industry” began using AIDS as a “dual purpose” marketing strategy to get more funding for condom distribution. This, he claims, effectively took “something that was a 2nd or 3rd grade device for avoiding unwanted pregnancies” and turned it into the “best weapon we [had] against AIDS.”

The accepted wisdom in the scientific community, explained Green, is that condoms lower the HIV infection rate, but after numerous studies, researchers have found the opposite to be true. “We just cannot find an association between more condom use and lower HIV reduction rates” in Africa.

Dr. Green found that part of the elusive reason is a phenomenon known as risk compensation or behavioral disinhibition.

“[Risk compensation] is the idea that if somebody is using a certain technology to reduce risk, a phenomenon actually occurs where people are willing to take on greater risk.” The idea can be related to someone that puts on sun block and is willing to stay out in the sun longer because they have added protection. In this case, however, the greater risk is sexual. Because people are willing take on more risk, they may “disproportionally erase” the benefits of condom use, Green said.

Another factor that contributes to ineffective condom use in Africa, is the phenomenon where condoms may be effective on an “individual level,” but not on a “population level.” Green’s research found that “condoms have been effective” in HIV concentrated areas where high risk activities are already being conducted, such as brothels in countries like Thailand.

Claiming to be a liberal himself, Green asserts that promoting Western “liberal ideology” where, “most Africans are conservative when it comes to sexual behavior,” is quite offensive to them. Citing his new book, “Indigenous Theories and Contagious Disease,” Green described Africans as “very religious by global standards” who are offended by “trucks going around where people are dancing to ‘Rock ‘n’ Roll’, tossing out condoms to teenagers and the children of the village.”

Green also noted that there is an ideology called “harm reduction” that is being pushed by many organizations trying to prevent AIDS.  The ideology believes that “you can’t change the underlying behavior, that you can’t get people to be faithful, especially Africans,” the HIV specialist explained.

One country, Uganda, recognized these issues and said, “Listen, if you have multiple sex partners, you are going to get AIDS.” What worked in Uganda, a country that has seen a decline by as much as 2/3 in AIDS infections, was that officials realized that even aside from religious and cultural reasons, “no one likes condoms.” Instead of waiting for “American and European advisors to arrive,” Ugandan officials reacted and developed a program that fit their culture; their main message being “stick to one partner or love faithfully.”

However, in 2004, Uganda’s AIDS infection rates began to increase once again, due to an influx of condoms and Western “advice”, Green recalled.  Western donors also came to Uganda and said behavioral change doesn’t work and that, “most infections nowadays are among married people.” Green said these claims are “misleading,” pointing out that “married people always have lower HIV infection rates than single or divorced people of the same age group.”

Green’s new book, “AIDS and Ideology,” to be completed in the next few months, will describe the industry in Africa that is “drawing billions of dollars a year promoting condoms, testing, drugs, and treatment of AIDS” and is clearly resistant to the idea that behavioral change is the solution.

Yet the two countries that have the highest infection rate of AIDS in the world, Botswana and Swaziland, have recently launched campaigns to promote fidelity and monogamy, the Harvard researcher said. These countries “have learned the hard way” about the failure of condoms in preventing AIDS, he said, noting that “Botswana has probably had more condom promotion” than any other county on a per capita basis. Green said he had no problem “having condoms as a backup to fidelity-based programs.”

According to Green, the Catholic Church should continue to “do what it is already doing,” avoid “arguing about the diameter of viruses” and cite scientific evidence in connection with scripture and moral theology.

Sunday 11/21/2010 Some liberal Pastors are telling the people its ok to use condoms. The truth will not come out and the liberal catholic are having a field day.

Thank you Jimmy, I’m so glad we have people like yourself and Janet Smith helping get the story straight. This story will actually give us some great moments to speak about the Church’s teaching on sexuality.

William, that was great….and one wonders then if Benedict was thinking of the Thailand difference in his remarks.

p.s…...this may be the biggest inadvertant marketing of a book in history.

The pope is Christs representative on earth and sucessor of peter I am not arguing with him, I think as long as you follow hurches teaching except for in the cirmcumstances that the pope has apparently said are ok then I dont see the argument. the papers are always having a digg at the pope so why not read the book when it come out instead of being judgemental

Homosexual sex is sterile. Therefore, using a condom where openness to life is already impossible violates no moral law. This is not comparable to condom use in heterosexual acts where openness to life would otherwise be possible. As usual, the media is deliberately stupid in its spin on this.

“AIDS has quietly caused the deaths of hundreds of Roman Catholic priests in the United States although other causes may be listed on some of their death certificates, the Kansas City Star reported today. The newspaper said its examination of death certificates and interviews with experts indicates several hundred priests have died of AIDS-related illnesses since the mid-1980s. The death rate of priests from AIDS is at least four times that of the general population, the newspaper said. Kansas City Bishop Raymond Boland says the AIDS deaths show that priests are human.”

Read the rest at The Gay Priest Problem.

Perhaps some of the Catholic priests who died from AIDS might not have died if both they and their partners had worn condoms.  As a secondary moral obligation, that is.

Thanks, Jimmy, for getting this out to the world SO FAST! It will allow us to defend our co-workers at the water cooler tomorrow.

Can we just get rid of L’ Osservatore Romano already?

A great article. I can recommend two wonderful books on the subject of AIDs treatment: Catholic Ethicists on HIV/AIDS Prevention by various authors ed by James F Keenan SJ, and Affirming Love, Avoiding AIDs - What Africa Can Teach the West by Matthew Hanley and Jokin de Irala.

Thanks so much for a timely and informative article.  Now when questions arrise, we will be able to give informed answers.

I think that the Pope is making an obvious point which is going unnoticed. He’s essentially saying: if you have a communicable disease, then you shouldn’t spread it.

If you sin, sin intelligently, but don’t kid yourself that it’s not sin…?  If you commit the sin or fornication, at least refrain from coupling it with murder?  Is this really SO HARD to grok?

Until yesterday’s quotations by Pope Benedict XVI surfaced, not one Pope had expressed that which the Pope expressed in regard to the useage of condoms.

Among Catholic bishops, just a few so-called “liberals” and “modernists,” as labeled so by conservative Catholics, had expressed that which Pope Benedict expressed in regard to “exceptional” circumstances that would justify the use of condoms.

Conservative Catholics would rail and denounce said “liberal” and “modernists” bishops.

Conservative Catholics must now apologize for their vicious attacks against said “liberal” and “modernists” bishops

The following is from a London newspaper in regard to reactions from leading Catholic theologians:

“They said the ambiguity of the Pope’s declaration could be a Pandora’s Box, convincing ordinary Catholics that condom use was now permissible in a much wider range of circumstances.

“It will from now on be harder than ever to justify the idea that condoms may not be used by married couples with discordant HIV status,” said Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith, a British priest and leading moral theologian.”

I reject the Pope’s personal opinion from his interview in regard to condoms.

I have every right as a Catholic to do so.

Conversely, I support the Pope’s official public teaching no-compromise declaration in regard to condoms that he uttered last year in Africa.

In that capacity, as a public teacher of the Faith, the Pope reiterated o the Faithful and world the Church’s traditional teaching in regard to condoms.

No need any Condoms for human, Men should keep away sex,without mari.

This is a lesson for all people in discernment.  We here statements all the time and if the source is believable, like the Obsservatore we are inclined to believe it.  But we are called to discern what is true and what isn’t.  Jimmy has helped that process here.

Those of you who think the pope said anything substantively different, in this statement, than he or other popes have said before, have misunderstood his statement.

The problem was not in the words the pope used, but in the reading comprehension skills of others.

Catholic moral theology holds that for an act to be morally licit, the act, its methods, and its intent, must all be licit. A good act through good methods for a bad reason is not moral; A good act for a good reason using bad methods is not moral; and an evil act, even if it uses permissible methods and is done with good intent, is not moral.

The statement of the Pope did not give any HINT of justification to the act of a male prostitute servicing a client, nor any HINT of justification to any particular method of doing so. These things have always been known to be illicit; the Pope said nothing and thus changed nothing in either category.

The only category the Pope addressed was intent.

Did he say that the intent to have disordered sex was a good or morally-neutral intent? No. He did not say that. He holds that such intentions are dehumanizing, are un-humane, are disrespectful of human dignity. He has said this before, and did not contradict himself here.

Did he imply that wearing a condom while doing such a disordered sexual act might be prompted—not the act, mind you, but the wearing of the condom during the act—by a good intent, namely, the intent not to pass a deadly disease to another person? Yes, he did imply that.

He went on to imply that IF a male prostitute, engaging in an evil act through evil methods for evil reasons, happened (as a result of a slight moral awakening) to choose to wear a condom while doing so, that choice MIGHT (not “must,” but “might”) be prompted by the good intent not to harm his client through disease. This would mean that the male prostitutes intentions in the OVERALL act were now no longer purely evil, but a mix of good and evil, which is a slight improvement.

Thus, says the Pope, this MIGHT (not “must,” but “might”) represent a partial move in the direction of a more humane, less dehumanized, understanding of sexuality. It would of course not achieve a FULL REALIZATION of humane sexuality: It would represent improvement, but not complete reversal. The combined intent of the act would still not be morally good or even morally neutral, but it would be slightly less bad than before.

That, albeit with greater brevity, was what the Holy Father said.

Now how is it that some media myrmidons interpreted such a statement—a statement that a given act, while immoral in object and immoral in method, might be slightly less immoral in intent than it otherwise could have been, though doubtless still not morally neutral or morally good—how is it that the media could interpret that statement as an assertion that the act was morally justified? (Remember, moral justification requires that all three facets of the act be moral, not just one of them.)

How could they get it that wrong?

Easy. As Simon and Garfunkel noted (and they could easily have been talking about nearly all the writing by nearly all reporters in world history): “[It’s] all lies in jest; still, a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.”

Orthodox Catholics, settle down and have no fear. The Holy Father has not yanked the rug out from underneath you. It is just that reporters (a.) know nothing about Catholic moral theology, (b.) all desperately want the Church to change its teaching, and (c.) haven’t usually exercised critical thinking skills in their adult lives, and thus were unable to comprehend what the Holy Father was saying.

Thanks for your analysis.
One point: The Pope’s statements should not require careful reading. He should be preaching to the masses, not whispering to the intelligentsia.

Too much waffle opens him, & by extension the Church, to gross misrepresentation. His not so plain speaking, has caused an awful lot of distress to those of us trying to defend the Church, & raise our children in it.

The analogy really put it into perspective for me

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

“Orthodox Catholics, settle down and have no fear. The Holy Father has not yanked the rug out from underneath you. It is just that reporters (a.) know nothing about Catholic moral theology, (b.) all desperately want the Church to change its teaching, and (c.) haven’t usually exercised critical thinking skills in their adult lives, and thus were unable to comprehend what the Holy Father was saying.”

You are wrong. 

It is now Churchmen, not reporters, but Churchmen who have declared that the Pope has opened the door in regard to condoms in a manner which represents a shift in the Church’s attitude.

Rebekah said “What is the difference between saying it is acceptable to use a condom in this situation as opposed to recommending circumcision”

Circumcision is a form of “mutilation” that affects sexual gratification and activity. Therefore it is against Catholic Teaching. (Check out Catholics Against Circumcision.)

“One point: The Pope’s statements should not require careful reading. He should be preaching to the masses, not whispering to the intelligentsia.

Too much waffle opens him, & by extension the Church, to gross misrepresentation. His not so plain speaking, has caused an awful lot of distress to those of us trying to defend the Church, & raise our children in it.”

That is correct.  The determination by conservative Catholics to always attack the media is old and tired.

If our Church’s leaders would speak in simple, unmistakable sentences, as they did prior to Vatican II, we would not require endless “clarifications” that flow constantly from the Vatican.

We even required a “clarification” in regard to Pope Benedict XVI and Communion in the hand.

Conservative Catholics assured us that the Pope’s decision to distribute Holy Communion on the tongue was a clear “reform of the reform” signal from the Pope.

The Pope has now “clarified” his action in question.  He said that he is not opposed to Communion in the hand.

Clarifications, clarifications, clarifications. 

I long for the pre-Vatican II Era when a Pope’s statements and actions were clear and unmistakable…and did not require “clarifications.”

I live in South Africa and we have a very high number of people living with HIV about 5 million.  It is important to bear in mind the following: It takes quite a while before the symptoms of HIV infection become evident in an individual.  Hence, it stands to reason that you will continue having sex with your spouse until the symptoms lead you to take an HIV test. By that time your spouse also has contracted the virus, so it is too late. So, if you are using a condom in marriage it will only be to prevent the spread of your particular HIV strain from infecting your partner and not the to prevent him or her getting the virus at all.  Another factor in South Africa is that we have high levels of violence against women.  Stats at one stage indicated that South Africa had the highest number of reported rape cases in the world.  Add to this that every weekend in the poor townships of South Africa there is masses of alcohol consumption and drug taking. Do you think a drunk husband or boyfriend is going to remember or even care about putting on a condom?  Do you think the wife is even going to have a say in the matter? Do you think a rapist is going to put on a condom first before raping the women or girl?  We are talking about a complex issue here.  To think the solution to the AIDS problem is about putting on a condom is a joke and very much a western secularist approach to the problem. It is also very patronising to say to Africans that they are unable to abstain, because that is in effect what UNAIDS and USAIDS saying. The condom mindset is degrading and undermines the dignity of Africans.

Is that true about circumcision?  Female circumcision I can see as immoral, but is male circumcision against Catholic teaching?  This doesn’t sound right to me.

Donna, You are correct male circumcision is not against the teachings of the church.  There are many valid reasons not to circumcise but it is a personal (parental) decision to make.  Either option is okay for catholics to make.

Thank you for the clarification. I knew there was more than what I read. This is a good reminder to ALL of us—myself included. Try very hard to hear what is actually being said, not what you want to hear.

And the spin begins!  Romans Chapter One is clear - no homosexual sex.
The bigger picture? NO SEX outside of marriage for anyone.  That means priests and bishops too.

I find it odd (and disturbing) that Pope Benedict thought about male prostitutes as an example for a possible use of condoms.  What was he thinking?  What were the editors of this book thinking?

I’ve always been confused why a married man with AIDS could not just use a condom as a means to stop infection of his spouse and the moral problem be dealt with under the law of secondary effect. If a woman can have a medical procedure to save her life, that will result in the death of a fetus, without being guilty of an abortion, doesn’t it seem an infected spouse could choose to block infection, but not intend to block life? Life will in fact be blocked and infection kept from a child conceived, but that is not the intention. That being said, like in the case of the mother above, heroic virtue is encouraged and praised, but not required. I am not saying this is Catholic doctrine. To my knowledge, on this issue, it is not. I submit my intellect and will to the Church on the matter, but don’t see the issue. The issues raised by our South African brother above are quite sobering as well. I think I may blog on that myself. Please pray for all the people on all sides of this issue in the world, pray for me, and pray for our men’s institute. Pax.

Cradle Catholic,
   
   One poster today above noted a report from a Harvard HIV researcher, Dr. Edward Green, who agreed with Pope Benedict that condoms were not reducing the disease in Africa but noted that they were reducing the disease in Thailand amongst prostitutes in a certain high risk environment.  The Harvard report was first noted by Fr. Z at his blog sometime ago.  NCR this weekend noted that the papally appointed group studying this problem had recommended condoms to reduce the disease but they did not note whether that was just for areas like Thailand’s prostitute district and not for Africa.  Hence Benedict could well have been aware of the Harvard research along with the papal group’s recommendation and that might explain his openness to using the condoms as to male prostitutes specifically where the condoms have been reducing the disease as in Thailand.

Damian Thompson mentioned the current thread posted by Mr. Akin:

Mr. Thompson stated:

“Conservative Catholic bloggers seem to be of one voice today: “The Pope did NOT say condoms are OK!” Which is true – up to a point.

“Jimmy Akin does so in an article for the National Catholic Register. But what I can’t accept is Akin’s implication that the media in general misrepresented what the Pope said. He picks three examples of headlines:

Pope says condoms sometimes permissible to stop AIDS

Pope: condoms can be justified in some cases

Pope says condoms can be used in the fight against Aids

“The first two of those strike me as a perfectly fair representation of the Pope’s comments.

“Like it or not, the Holy Father made it clear that the use of condoms is sometimes permissible to stop the spread of the virus, even if – speaking in German – he didn’t use the words “permissable” or “justified”.

“What he didn’t say was “let’s go ahead and use condoms to fight against Aids,” which is what the third headline implies.

“Eric’s post certainly makes a good deal more sense than those of his fellow conservatives who claim that the Pope didn’t say what he obviously did say… and then emphasise that he was only speaking in an interview AND how dare L’Osservatore Romano release these quotes out of context.

“Hmm. There is a strong whiff of cognitive dissonance in the air.

“I hate to pick a fight with bloggers I admire, and I won’t mention any names, but I get the strong impression that certain conservatives are tying themselves in knots trying not to say what they really think.

“Which is that they disagree with the Pope.”
——————————————

What is wrong with disagreeing with the Pope’s non-official (as far as the Magisterium is concerned) personal opinions that he offered to Peter Seewald?

We are most certainly free to disgree with Pope Benedict XVI’s personal opinions in regard to male prostitues and condoms.

Here’s my take on the Pope’s words:

http://subcreators.com/blog/2010/11/21/the-pope-the-press-and-condoms-oh-my/

Thanks for clearing that up Jimmy. I remember listening to the radio yesterday afternoon and what the Pope is meant to have said came on the news. I think, “What?!”

Thanks, Jimmy, for putting Janet Smith’s excellent analogy of the bank robber using a gun without bullets.

The pope’s thinking is way above the media’s train of thought. This is an excercise in intellectually differentiation.

I like it.

I consider myself a faithful catholic, but I have to say the Holy Father has a way of creating confusion or worse by voicing his musings a bit randomly.  Does anyone remember a couple of years ago when in an interview or some other forum the Holy Father quoted an obscure (and largely irrelevant) Byzantine emperor to the effect that Islam was a violent religion?  What in heaven’s name was that for?  The consequences of that statement were quite severe and could and have been foreseen. Here we have another example of an academic that cannot resist the temptation to follow hypothetical trains of thought without considering the confusion that these same musings cause.  The other possibility, which perhaps should not be ruled out, is that this DOES represent a change in the Church’s position.  In any case, I agree with a previous post who longs for the days when papal positions were more clear and did not require clarifications.

I elaborate at my site on the point I made above—this has been discussed for a while now.

http://bit.ly/9Yl59F

I’m so tired of the churches thing to say every thing we do is wrong and a sin. if every thing we do is a sin don’t you think god would of pushed us all already, for sinning every second of our life’s like the pope and churches say, and how do they know every thing we do is a sin i dought god tells them everything is a sin

“The report echoes the warnings of multiple medical experts, among them Dr. Norman Hearst of the University of California, who raised the alarm on condom use as an AIDS preventative in 2004. Dr. Hearst presented statistics showing a marked correlation between increased condom sales in the African nations of Kenya, Botswana, and others, and a parallel increase in HIV rates by year.
Promoting abstinence and marital faithfulness has had the only significant measurable impact on reducing HIV infection rates in Africa. “

why can go to sun yes or not
they a some earth sore live

Do we really need another clarification from Janet TOB Smith?

I’m wondering about something: I’m a fairly new Catholic, so correct me if I’m wrong—If a moral act depends on act, means and intent all being moral—is the immoral “means” here the use of a condom, or the contraceptive use of a condom?  In other words, CourageMan, I was reading on your blog that the act is immoral but a thing, like a condom, can’t be….is this kind of what you meant…that the condom itself is neutral, but the use to which it’s put can be moral or immoral depending?  But then, maybe that gets into the intent part.

:::my head is spinning:::can’t do philosophy in the morning!

I applaud your courage, CourageMan, and your fidelity to Christ.  I’d have posted on your blog, but I have a trackback to this one so I thought I’d muddy the discussion here instead. :)

Satanism:344
United States Catholic Catechism for Adults

God and Money
MATTHEW 6:24
The New American Bible

Donna:

Yes, the act is contraception, and the use of a condom (or a pill, or whatever) would be the means. And, in this case, those means are neutral. The point I made here and at my site is that a condom is not an act, though it certainly can be (indeed, almost always is) used for an immoral act.

The fact that so many priests have violated minors, although they had access to the Catholic sacraments, suggests that a huge number of people cannot, in practice, go for a long time without sex. Since so many people need sex badly, it is clear that condoms should be used as often as possible, in order to avoid infecting people (like unborn children…) Regardless of the true facts behind the disclosure of the Pope’s private opinion, folk will think that they have been manipulated by opportunists.

I’m just kind of thinking aloud (in print) trying to stretch this to apply to a married couple, one with AIDs, who uses a condom to prevent passing the infection.  Act: sex between married couple; Means: condom; Intent: save life.  Here, act and intent are good, but the means, the condom, has a contraceptive effect, so that’s not completely good.  Maybe I’m overlooking the bigger picture that the *act* of having sex in that case would be bad because it’s taking a huge risk of spreading infection.  My intuition is that the Church teaching hasn’t changed in this area and that it’s not a heroic (optional) sacrifice but a necessary cross for that couple to abstain.  I hope the Church clarifies this; or maybe she already has?

Sorry to be unclear: my post at 2:49 PM is in response to CourageMan’s post at 12:46…another post came in between our posts.  This sure is a hot topic!

Please no more explanations by Dr. Smith.  The pope is neither advocating condoms nor sodomy.

I was very pleased to hear our Pope talk like a theologian.  It was refreshing and not something I’m going to worry about - even when the press writes ridiculous headlines.  Any Catholic should know that it is worse to risk someone’s life than to have protected sex.  The bank robber is an excellent analogy, but what might be pointed out is that there are, I expect, more than a few Catholic bank robbers.

Excellent comment by R.C., above.

It is wearying to read so many comments that are disparaging the Pope based on things read in the sechular media…around here we often use the term “media malpractice” when referring to the tendency of the media to lambast the Church’s position without ever clearly stating what the Church’s position really is (as stated by someone who clearly understands what the Church’s position is).  Please visit NFPOutreach.org…a clearinghouse for the facts issues such as these.

To Deacon Rick Condon-

I don’t think our Church could blame the secular media for THIS news.  It was a book being released by a CATHOLIC publisher, and the leak of this tidbit was the Vatican’s own newspaper.

Wasn’t it the same Vatican newspaper that claimed Homer Simpson and his family, fictional cartoon characters, were Catholic?

There comes a time for all of us to own up to our own mistakes, and correct them, like men and women.

There was an episode about Homer and Bart Simpson exploring Catholicism.  I thought it was very funny in parts—like the difference between Protestant Heaven and Catholic Heaven….!

Donna:

Some theologians (and not ones with reputations for dissidence) do debate the issue of condom use involving sero-mixed opposite-sex couples, married or unmarried. (Jimmy alludes to this in his next post—http://www.ncregister.com/blog/understanding-the-popes-dilemma-on-condoms/)

I haven’t followed the debate terribly closely—I follow the gay-related ones more, obviously. But my impression is that the split is over WHAT IS the act a k a—and this can makes the parsing confusing—the object of the act, or WHAT you choose to do (the means = HOW; the intent = WHY).

Those who think the traditional teaching against condoms applies in this situation would parse it this way: act (or “object”) = contraception; means = condom; intent = reduce disease risk. Since the act/object is intrinsically evil, this action is too. They would criticize your breakdown on the grounds that if the act/object is sex, the means can’t really be a condom, it’d be ... well ... the body parts. For the condom to be a means, the act/object would have to be something the condom itself achieves.

This is great news from the pope. Now I can become a male prostitute as long as I use a condom.
.

L’Osservatore Romano often blunders, it is not the official organ of the Holy See. It offers articles by high ranking clerics and their personal opinions which some journalists and theologians mistakenly believe as the teachings of the Magisterium.

Same thing with all the Church “Fathers” that often disagreed with each other.  That’s why I just take my beliefs from the Bible, the inspired Word of God.  It’s clear and unmuddied.  It only gets muddied when people put their spin on it, taking the Bible verses out of context.

But taken in CONTEXT, Scripture is the gold standard of measure.  The Deposit of Faith, the teachings that the apostles left us, is key.  So easy.

Popes come and go.  But God’s inspired Word lasts forever.

Frankly, I’m disturbed that Pope Benedict thought FIRST about homosexual sex and the protection of MEN.  I’d have hoped he’d think about a WOMAN being infected by HIV by her infected and straying husband.

I guess it’s fine, if a husband gives his wife HIV.  But it’s not good for a man to give HIV to another man.  Another reason to think of the crusty old men in the Vatican as women-haters.  They just keep adding to the pile of data that leads to that conclusion.

Jesus was good to women, and the Father does not play favorites.  PS- By that comment, I do NOT mean I support women priests.  I do not.  The Bible does NOT support the ordination of women.  If only we could honor St. Paul’s qualifications for the ordained ministry.

Well put. That is a good summary of the situation.

The local secular media here desperately tried to downplay the heart of the Pope’s comments and suggest he is doing a backflip on contraception.

I bet the sedevacantist protestants who continually try to undermine the Pope for obvious reasons (ie. to rationalise their new Churches by pretending the Catholic Church ended in the 1900s rather than the 4th Century like other protestant groups believe) will be churning out voluminous quantities of articles on this one as a “proof” that the Pope rejects Catholicism and no doubt they will misrepresent his comments in their usual style.

Anthony Davis,

If you took the time to check rather than just reading media headlines you would be aware that the fact is that a comparatively small proportion of priests compared to other groups who have no vow of celibacy have violated minors. That is the fact you need to deal with to draw meaningful conclusions not that the number of priests involved in the last 50 years which is what gets reported.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE -  Stop just talking about priests that molested CHILDREN. 

Priests should not be having sex AT ALL.  None, zip, nada, outside of marriage.

I have been involved w/ the issue of clergy abuse for the past 7 years.  Less than 4% of the clergy abused children.  But how many priests AND bishops have had sex with women and other men?  How many priests AND bishops ARE having sex with women and other men NOW?

The statistics are staggering.  Even abortion is fine, as long as it’s the offspring of a priest that is being killed.  And abandonment of a priest’s family is just dandy too.  Let’s get real folks.

It’s not just the less than 4% of clergy that has sex issues.  It’s a LOT more.  And if they don’t have issues with sex, there is the alcohol abuse issue.

Rebekah the differences that come to mind between circumcision and condom usage are these:

Condom usage is not a one off procedure but needs to be done each time someone has sex.
Condom usage status can be affected by decisions made when intoxicated.
Condom usage is often called a “shower with a raincoat”.
Circumcision offers a 70-80% protection while condoms provide about a 98-99% protection.
Circumcision never breaks.
For heterosexuals condoms are also used for contraception.
At no time in history did God require people to put condoms on their babies.

Henry get real. Most people think it looks better so how could it be mutilation? It also fails the alternative definition of cutting off a body part as just an ugly flap of skin is cut off from the end of a body part. Indeed if performed as an infant it protects against penile cancer that is often treated by cutting off a particular body part much like breast cancer treatment often includes cutting off breasts. Further, the study funded by an anti-circ group that indicated it affects sensitivity was found to give the opposite conclusion when the data was reanalyzed in peer review. The issue has been considered as directly as physiological measurement and as indirectly as prevalence of premature or delayed ejaculation or before and after surveys. There is absolutely no difference in sexual gratification unless the foreskin is tight and splits during intercourse in which case it works in the opposite direction to that which you suggest. CAC’s website is loaded with what I have heard that the Dutch mean when those letters are pronounced as a word. It claims that no medical organization in the world recommend circumcision yet the WHO and the American Urological Association both do and a spokesperson for the American Pediatric Association recently said that if they changed they would go from a neutral position to a more positive position. The Centre of Disease Control is currently considering whether or not to recommend routine circumcision. That is just the first phrase on the CAC homepage. It gets worse from there. Supposedly from a Catholic perspective it states “Evidence suggests that North American men who have been circumcised are becoming more aware of the mutilation and harm that has been done to them”. In other words they are saying that something our Lord required the ancient Jews to have done to their babies is mutilation. The implication is unfounded defamation against the head of the Catholic Church. If you want a more objective evidence based understanding visit the website of a medical research scientist who has a huge number of published papers on the topic:
http://www.circinfo.net/

Elizabeth you are absolutely correct. The apostles held that getting done as an adult was a greater burden than getting done as a baby (babies don’t need stitches and heal in a couple of days rather than weeks) and was not required for conversion and were strongly critical of those who taught otherwise. They taught that for Jesus either being circumcised or being uncircumcised is fine. It is understood by our Church that baptism replaces circumcision as the religious requirement.

Deacon Rick writes:  “It is wearying to read so many comments that are disparaging the Pope based on things read in the sechular media…around here we often use the term “media malpractice” when referring to the tendency of the media to lambast the Church’s position.”

Well, Rick, stop blaming other people.  That campaign already blew up in the Vatican’s face earlier this Summer.  The media would have nothing to write about if our priests and bishops only practiced what they preach to single people.  That is, “Keep your pants on.”

CourageMan:
Thank you for providing clarity in this interesting discussion!

More of my own parsing—act: safe sex; means: condom; intent: disease prevention.
As opposed to act: safe sex; means: condom; intent: pregnancy prevention (obviously against Catholic teaching). ( I suppose one could say the means in my first example is evil because it has the *effect* of pregnancy prevention?)

I don’t want to mislead or confuse anyone—I really don’t know what the theologians or Magisterium would say about my thoughts…they’re just that, my thoughts.  I go with whatever the Church decides.

The weakness of the pope when talking to the world at large is the hair-splitting distinctions he has to make when pronouncing an statement. The media is crude and over-simplistic and will seize any chance to run over the Church. I myself (a faithful Catholic) needed the clarification. Thanks for providing it.

“The weakness of the pope when talking to the world at large is the hair-splitting distinctions he has to make when pronouncing an statement. The media is crude and over-simplistic and will seize any chance to run over the Church. I myself (a faithful Catholic) needed the clarification. Thanks for providing it.”

I wouldn’t put it that way but I hear you. The previous Pope was much more of an extrovert who knew what to say to his audience. That was a blessing for public relations and built bridges. The current Pope is very clever and a person of action but not such a people person. He does intelectualise too much for the media. The sedevacantists are also fond of taking a tiny sound byte out of context even if that context explains it. The Holy Father’s public comments are perfect for inclusion in an in depth academic thesis or speaking to a group of intellectuals but he needs to consider channeling intellectual forays on religious issues through very knowledgeable and astute PR people for translation if it is to be provided to hostile and simplistic minded media representatives.

Interesting point, Michael.  You can see how the Vatican’s media department is about 50 years behind the times.  The current people in the information office have proven media savvy challenged and seem perplexed that people are not just “accepting” what “We tell them.”  The world has changed and the Vatican has yet to grasp how to communicate effectively to both believer (and non-believer) in clear unmistakeable language.  Often they cite secular media bias as the problem.  The fact is, most of the media are unchurched.  Thus it should be expected theological explanations will not easily resonate with the media covering Vatican pronouncements.  Staffing the Vatican information office with 60 to 80 year old priests places the Vatican at a disadvantage in the modern communication age.  They need to get younger and smarter.  Benedict may be intellectual and highly learned theologically, but he definitely has a problem with effective public relations.  This year has not been stellar and their damage control has been even worse.

This blog gets it right:  <http://endofthemodernworld.blogspot.com/2010/11/remarks-of-benedict-xvi-regarding.html>.  The pope says condom use by homosexuals, even though it isn’t contraceptive in that case, is “not a moral solution”.  But he says that the psychological/epistemic aspects of beginning to cope with the consequences of one’s actions could, if persevered in and extended, lead to genuinely moral considerations & engagement—and this could pertain to someone’s condom use.  But that doesn’t make condom use morally good, it indicates merely that condom use could be correlated with a beginning of acknowledging something other than unregulated appetite, a beginning that if extended and developed could eventually lead to morality.  That, however, can’t be put in a slogan or headline, can it?  And the New York Times, and the Washington Post—and, for that matter, the “Catholic” apologists of condom use—would prefer a different story.

“The current Pope ... does intelectualise too much for the media.”  With respect, Michael and New Observer: balderdash.  I saw Pope Benedict at Hyde Park and listened very carefully to what he said during his entire papal visit.  I must say, I really like him, his manner, the twinkle you sometimes see in his eye, and his willingness to tackle difficult issues.         

This discussion is very healthy and to be enjoyed.  I’m sorry for the Catholics who are confused, but if this ‘confusing’ statement leads to a better understanding of the Church’s mature attitude to the AIDS problem, contraception, and human sexuality in general, then I applaud the ‘confusion.’  It is a wonderful thing that the Pope said what he said. The American blogger who wrote the American forward to his book, said the Pope *wrote* his answers to the interviewer.  I suspect he knew what a furore it would cause and is smiling, like a professor who said something deliberately shocking and is enjoying the class debate.  I have always been confident the Church’s teaching never conflicts with Christ’s injunction to ‘love thy neighbour as thyself’.  If what the press reports makes it appear that the Church does contradict Christ, I must assume that the press is wrong, or my understanding of what it means to ‘love one’s neighbour’ is wrong, or both.  A little soul-searching is a great thing.

Occult practices:344
United States Catholic Catechism for Adults

I’m with Christine W. regarding the media abilities of JPII and Benedict.

I’m so tired of people who are quick to judge Benedict, or compare him to his predecessor. I loved John Paul II very much, but I love Benedict too. He’s a precious, sweet, meek man who was painted as anything but from the day he was elected! (Will the public ever get the picture of a Rottweiler out of their mind as he was introduced to the world!)

That alone shows how the media operates, and it shows, unfortunately, that the public is unduly influenced by these first “impressions.”

Whether it’s a politician the media hates (read that any politician who believes in traditional values or pro life), the pope or the church, it will do its best to ridicule, polarize, etc. so as to tear down.

The very idea that Benedict is somehow less media savvy than his predecessor is absurd, but even if that were true it doesn’t matter. No amount of media savvy is going to keep the media from sabotaging the message. Why do we continue to try to “explain” to them when they clearly understand but don’t want to get it “right”????

I agree. Using condoms is a step in the right direction.  Many civilizations especially those with male dominance have to be taught to understand the love aspect of intercourse.  Furthermore, the females need to teach the males, because in any civilization, females are concerned more about their family,siblings,and offspring.  As their offspring mature, we will see a much more civilized society.  Teach the females and they will intern teach their young.

Thank you for this enlightening article. With this, we could help explain to our friends what the Pope really intends to say, which had been distorted by the media.

What some people do not understand is that Observatore Romano   is not “The Vatican,” and in fact sometimes acts as though it were NOT responsible to the Vatican.  Not everyone associated with the Vatican is of like mind with the Pope, and sometimes they have the opportunity to “spit in the soup,” so to speak.

You know, just because he’s the pope doesnt mean he’s the most holy person in the world. He’s just the leader of a large group of people. Nobody said Obama’s the most intelligent man in America and yet he’s the president. I think the way people interpret this book and the opinion of this interviewer is that the pope is for condoms. If he is, I respect that because everyone is entitled to their own opinion and beliefs.

The pope is “For condoms?”  I really don’t know what you mean by this, but, no, he does not say that condoms ought to be used. he says merely, that a male prostitute who decides to use a condom is at least showing that he has a glimmer of a conscience and perhaps rethinking where his “profession” is taking him, which is to hell.  The whole piece decries the mechanistic view of the secularists who preaches the gospel of the condom: teach the use of the condom and provide the student with one, and he will use it, with the implicit admonition—now just f—- all you want, no harm will come to you.

I have been searching for the full text of the Pope’s statement. The link shown above leads to a forbidden site. Will someone please just cut and paste it here so we can read it and not just what many others are interpreting it to be?

Here’s the link:  http://www.catholicworldreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=221:pope-benedict-xvi-discusses-condoms-and-the-spread-of-hiv&catid=53:cwr2010&Itemid=70

Opening pandora’s box is never a good idea.  Perhaps the Holy Father has decided it was already opened. I pray his remarks lead souls to God and do not mislead them to sin and death.

One of the problems we see in this matter stems from the general view that the Pope can do (or say) nothing wrong.  We have ascribed to him the title of “Holy” Father which implies something beyond human.  Those who follow the Dahli Lama consider him a “Holy” man as well.  The Gospel fact is that Jesus Himself said ONLY God is Holy.  The Pope is a human being and a sinner as are all men.  As a result, there will be times when his comments (or positions) are not perfect and mistakes are made because he is —human like all of us.  St. Paul wrote:  “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”  Paul further writes:  “There is no one righteous,—no not one.”

A condom is no more ‘intrinsically evil’ than a gun, a knife, or a piano wire.  But you can do much more harm with a gun, a knife, or a piano wire than with a condom.

La Observatore Romano shoould get a call from the Holy Father.  How many times does he (and we) have to put up with this kind of thing from the “official” paper of the Vatican?  How about a new editor at the paper?

“A condom is no more ‘intrinsically evil’ than a gun, a knife, or a piano
wire. But you can do much more harm with a gun, a knife, or a piano wire
than with a condom.”
Yes, even condoms can do damage by providing a false sense of security and promoting promiscuity. That’s how the rates of HIV infection don’t diminish or even increase even with the availability of condoms.

“The Gospel fact is that Jesus Himself said ONLY God is Holy. The Pope is a human being and a sinner
as are all men.”
True, but in fact because Jesus is pure holiness that’s why we can be holy if only we abide by His Love.
We can share in his holiness, that is how we can become holy. And in fact we need to if we want to enter heaven, for “nothing unholy will enter heaven”.
The pope is the vicar of Christ by commission and as he walks with Jesus he is holy, and we become holy as well if we walk with Jesus through the Pope’s guide.

The pope always speaks with authority, but like anyone else what he says can be misinterpreted. The root of this mess is that the condom has become a shibboleth especially for the liberal crowd which has been trying to push for a change in Church doctrine since the ‘60s.  More broadly, they tend to dilute Church doctrine to make it conform to “Reason.”  Reason, however, means to accept that only
science can provide us with truth, that Revelation is but an outdated myth that must constantly be adjusted. Never mind that Revelation tells us more truth about man than science does. Humanae Vitae provides better prophesy than the prognostications of its opponents regarding the future of the human race.

“The pope is the vicar of Christ by commission and as he walks with Jesus he is holy, and we become holy as well if we walk with Jesus through the Pope’s guide.”

So, as Cardinal Ratzinger, he is not Holy, but as Pope Benedict —he thus became Holy?  Is this imputed?

So you are saying that the perceived risk of ‘promiscuity’ is worse than the actual risk of AIDS.  The fact that condoms are available everywhere anyway, the fact that the Church has always preached chastity and fidelity, the fact that secular AIDS workers are promulgating abstinence as the best prevention (with mixed success) - all of this will be ignored - our children will immediately buy condoms and fornicate with clear consciences - everyone will breathe a sigh of relief that they can finally misbehave without consequences - all this will come to pass if the Church declares that using a condom to prevent AIDS is a lesser evil than transmitting AIDS.

If that is what we - the people who make up the Church - are saying, shame on us, shame on our hypocrisy.  Promiscuity is not the issue here.  The Church’s responsibility as a moral leader is the issue.  If the Pope’s message was too nuanced for the faithful, it’s not a proud day to be a Catholic.

Christine - you are absolutely correct.  Look at what goes on in our public schools.  It is NOT OK for schools to give out an asprin —but, many schools do distribute condoms.  What message is this sending?  Here it is.  You can sin against God, violate His standard —-AND—- with the use of a condom,—-YOU can get away with it!

The idea of “safe sex” outside God’s law is a fantasy.  The risks are physical, health, emotional and psychological to say nothing of pregnancy.  And the woman always takes the highest of risk.  The only real safe sex is abstinence.  Can people not practice self control?  Does God not call us to a higher standard?  Paul is very clear about who we are in Romans.

It is not that the pope’s answer is too nuanced, it is that Observatore Romano took what he said and
made him seem to say what he did not in fact say.  The world press then put this misconstruction into the form of a headline.  It is the headlines that are misleading Catholics.

And Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you… prostitutes ARE entering the kingdom of God ahead of you!”  That’s headline material too.

Paul,Lest you lead people astray, Jesus was referring to those who others still called prostitutes and sinners, but who had become his followers and had left that life behind.

Pam, “lest you lead people astray”, it has already been pointed out by Jimmy, Paul Devere, the previous poster John Schuh and many others that headlines, quotes, the words of Jesus and Church teaching can all be tricky for people to properly understand.  For example, in addition to the quote by Jesus provided by Paul, the Church herself teaches that “Jesus gave scandal above all”.  And she instructs that “Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it.”  That applies to reading headlines and posts and to what the Pope and others say.  And of course, even to what you say.  Perhaps that is what you were pointing to, along with Jimmy, Paul, John and the others.

To Mary,  Among many things Catholics have as a gift is the great saints and the traditions and the magisterium…  Jesus words and headlines etc. can be manipulated, but we aren’t supposed to be just putting our own meaning on everything.  The faith and the teaching have been handed down.  We have an obligation to learn it as Jesus taught it.  Putting a caveat to someone’s statement is not condemning it.  It is making it more complete.  Jesus “gave scandal” to the scribes and Pharisees, but not to the Truth. Paul’s post was adding on to John’s comments and so they were written in that context.  God bless

The devil they say is in the details.

Mary, right on!

I go with whatever the Church decides and i believe some media were trying to destroy the roman catholic simply by confusing its members. It is obvious that Satan is using those media to suppress human life, specially the unborn. Those media are the fierce anti Christ of the modern times…

“And Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you… prostitutes ARE entering the
kingdom of God ahead of you!” That’s headline material too.”
Taken out of context is misleading. This has to bel, paired with “Go and sin no more”. Should also be headline material.

“So you are saying that the perceived risk of ‘promiscuity’ is worse than
the actual risk of AIDS. The fact that condoms are available everywhere
anyway, the fact that the Church has always preached chastity and fidelity,
the fact that secular AIDS workers are promulgating abstinence as the best
prevention (with mixed success) - all of this will be ignored - our children
will immediately buy condoms and fornicate with clear consciences - everyone
will breathe a sigh of relief that they can finally misbehave without
consequences”

Several problems here, “promiscuity” is the best vehicle for the spread of AIDS. Contagion by transfusion is preventable and is being prevented.
The Church has always preached chastity and fidelity as the best bet for a healthy lifestyle, not only STD free but for for your eternal soul also. This remains true even if nobody believes it/follows it and even if some clergy betray this principle, their betrayal is not hypocrisy of the Church, but personal bad choice as any other betrayal of principles.
If our Children start fornicating left and right if because we tell them is OK, that they should be “exploring their bodies” instead of doing sports, learn math, do music, do art and go to Church. If we tell them that sex is just another toy to play with then give them condoms and the pill and tell them that now they are safe, which a lie, condoms have a failure rate even when used properly which is probably much to ask to a teen whose barain is still developing. The pill carries severe health risks also.

Robert Hernandez - very well stated.  I agree with you 100%.

Robert Hernandez, the two verses you mention come from different stories in the Bible and are not “paired” as a couplet in the Bible.  Also, whether it’s a Bible verse or a headline, reasonable readers appreciate that it’s not the whole story, and to read it as the whole story would be the reader taking it out of context.

Likewise, chastity and fidelity are not the whole story when it comes to preventing HIV/STD transmission.  A woman may be chaste and faithful to her husband, but that does not mean she is safe from HIV/STDs.  Even if her husband is also chaste and faithful, that still does not mean she, her husband or her children are safe from HIV/STDs.  Health risks are associated with most everything, including even breathing and driving to church.

The repentance of sinners and turning to the saving power of Jesus Christ is the central message of the Gospel.  Thousands of scripture verses can be quoted.

The spread of HIV/STD’s is not the “whole story.” The eternal salvation of a persons soul is the most important.  And, in safegaurding one’s soul, the secondary concern of STD’s is diminished.

There is nothing sinful in breathing and driving to church.

Just from reading these responses readers can see there is an effort to confuse and divide Catholics.  They show woh their father truly is.  Some posters take a phrase out of context or use a general admonition and use it to justify positions the Church has always opposed.  I think they do us a service by showing how sandy and shifting the ground they build on is.  Kathy 16670 is right.  As Jesus ascended to heaven He said, “Go teach repentance for the forgiveness of sins.”  That’s what HE emphasized as He ascended.

Kathy, breathing and driving to church can be both be sinful, depending, for example, on the how and why someone does it.

Pam, what we see in the posts of others is very often a reflection of ourselves, and “from a man being evil in himself, and from this very fact, as though conscious of his own wickedness, he is prone to think evil of others.”  We should be aware that when we interpret a post as evil, that is our doing.  And, for example, when a man begins to doubt of another’s goodness from slight indications, this is a venial and a light sin.  On the other hand, “when a man, from slight indications, esteems another man’s wickedness as certain, this is a mortal sin, if it be about a grave matter, since it cannot be without contempt of one’s neighbor.”

It MIGHT be that “some posters” are doing wrong, as the possibility of sin is a possibility of human freedom.  And anyone might err frequently by thinking well of “some posters”, but as St. Thomas taught, “it is better to err frequently through thinking well of a wicked man than to err less frequently through having an evil opinion of a good man.”  Amending one’s behavior to do what is better is in keeping with
“Go teach repentance for the forgiveness of sins” and living charity toward others.  Or, in the Pope’s words, “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.”  But not everyone might rightly appreciate what the Pope, Jesus and “some posters” have said.  As Jesus was dying on the Cross, where prayer and the gift of self are but one, he said: “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.”

Pam, you are only “presuming” there is an effort to confuse and divide Catholics.  Seriously, do you have any idea how many Catholics (self identified Catholics) do not know church teachings?  The great majority of Catholics did not attend Catholic grammar school or high school.  And Catechism—if they attended —was 20, 30 or 40 years ago.  Moreover, you speak of sin.  When is the last time you heard “SIN” covered in a Sunday homily by your parish priest?  Sin is not even discussed in church any longer as are confession and repentance.  These are uncomfortable topics in today’s American and European Catholic church.  They do not wish to alienate the parishioners with unpleasant topics —because that, unfortunately, also means impacting the Sunday collection negatively.  It’s a fact, Catholic attendance at mass on a regular basis is in a decline.  The majority of priests today are only preaching a “nice” message of God’s love.  The current crop of priests and bishops essentially ignore the topic of sin.  Thus, no teaching is taking place.  Also, it is interesting to note, the Vatican recently issued a bulletin to clergy worldwide that homilies should be kept to 8 minutes —max.  How much “teaching” can done in 8 minutes?

Dawn, please site an authentic catholic source to verify your claim that “breathing and driving to church” can be sinful.

As an example, here is that Catechism of the Catholic Church on the openness to fertility (and obvious diapproval of condoms and other contraceptives that block openess to life.)

* The openness to fertility

1652 “By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory.“162

Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: “It is not good that man should be alone,” and “from the beginning [he] made them male and female”; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: “Be fruitful and multiply.” Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.163
1653 The fruitfulness of conjugal love extends to the fruits of the moral, spiritual, and supernatural life that parents hand on to their children by education. Parents are the principal and first educators of their children.164 In this sense the fundamental task of marriage and family is to be at the service of life.165

If we have reached the point where we have to question or need proof of the moral validity of breathing and driving to Church and/or equate it with dangerous or risky behaviors, I think we are failing to recognize that we reached a Reductio ad absurdum (Reduction to Absurdity) situation.

Kathy, as an example, if I were to drive recklessly or drunk to church, my drive to church can be sinful and a danger to life.  Is that not obvious to you?  Also, you cited CCC#1652-1653 but it does not contradict anything I’ve said.  What I said was that chastity and fidelity provide limited protection against HIV/STDs.  And that’s true whether or not you’re open to fertility in marriage or not.  If you thought I was advocating that married people use illicit contraception between husband and wife, I recommend you revise your thinking.

Gseeker, if you are unaware of the risks of driving and breathing, you are unaware.  I wear my seatbelt when driving to church, but usually I prefer to walk, although some say the risks, not to mention damage to my joints, might be greater in walking.

Dawn, Maybe what you see in the posts of others is a reflection of you.  You put several statements in quotes but don’t list sources. You mention St. Thomas (Aquinus?) Certainly we must look at things we don’t understand with the assumption that good is intended.  And certainly many Catholics don’t know their faith. No argument there.  But some things on their face disagree with Church teaching and divide.  No presumption there. We aren’t asked to destroy our common sense - although their are many working to do that. To New Observer: I speak of sin because it is a spiritual REALITY.  Because you don’t hear it spoken of as often, do you think it ceases to exist? Have you got a source for your eight minute homily limit.  It hasn’t been followed in my neck of the woods.  You sound very pessimistic toward the priesthood and the direction of the Church.  So I will join you in praying for the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Here are some more quotes from the Holy Father from that interview:
1. The pope called the sex abuse scandal “a great crisis” that left him stunned by how wretched the Church is, by how much her members fail to follow Christ.”
2. “t was really almost like the crater of a volcano, out of which suddenly a tremendous cloud of filth came, darkening and soiling everything, so that above all the priesthood suddenly seemed to be a place of shame.”
3. “When, for example, in the name of non-discrimination, people try to force the Catholic Church to change her position on homosexuality or the ordination of women, then that means she is no longer allowed to live out her own identity.”

Pam, you continue to use vague epressions like “some posters” and “some things”.  For example, you say “some things on their face disagree with Church teaching”.  I read that as saying, “Pam, in her limited understanding of what someone is saying, interprets some things as disagreeing with her limited interpretation / understanding of Church teaching”.  In other words, I do not esteem that words have meaning “on their face” but instead they can and do have the variety of meanings that we give them in our interpretations, which can and do vary from person to person.  As wonderful as the English language may be, it is a tool of limited use, which in its use is not better than the person’s skill in using it.  It is my experience that many people may say things which “on their face” might appear to be wrong, but when I persist in charity with them, I often find that it was my “common sense” understanding of their words which was wrong, that the “face” I was disagreeing with was my own superificial interpretation.

Pam: 1- Replace “how wretched the Church is” by “the pope said he could not understand how some priests betrayed their vows” and be closer to what the Pope said.
2.- that was the perception created by the mass media.
3.- The Church cannot change her views on homosexuality and ordination of women because she cannot change the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Gseeker: Those quotes are exactly what the Pope said according to the “Anchor” the official paper of the Diocese of Fall River. We can find out for ourselves by buying the book made from the interview.

Pam, you wrote:
“I speak of sin because it is a spiritual REALITY.  Because you don’t hear it spoken of as often, do you think it ceases to exist? Have you got a source for your eight minute homily limit.  It hasn’t been followed in my neck of the woods.  You sound very pessimistic toward the priesthood and the direction of the Church.”

Pam, are you serious with that question?  Of course sin exists.  So why aren’t we hearing more about it?  Perhaps if sin were preached about more often the confusion regarding this condom topic and references to prostitution would not be the cause of so much consternation here.  I have already explained that many Catholics have not been “taught” anything since childhood.  And they sure were not taught about condoms, NFP and prostitution in Catechism class.  Were you?  I am pessimistic whenever the full Gospel is compromised by failing to teach.  As to the Vatican directive regarding advisement concerning limiting homilies to 8 minutes—it was on a Catholic website about a month ago.  Could have been the USCCB—the bishop’s.  I don’t recall with certainty which site.  Of course, actual enforcement at the local level would be quite difficult.  It is probably a guideline only.

New Observer: If anyone was foolish enough to limit homilies at the local level, he may be doing some of us a favor, giving the low quality of preaching in the Church since—well, sixty years I know about. ;-)

Dawn, Peace of Christ.  You don’t sound very Christian in that last post.  You sound very open minded but also very proud. And hopefully you are striving for true holiness and God is first in your life.  I will concede that the posts on this article are less confrontational or obnoxious than some other posts in other ncresgister blogs which may have factored into my comment and I can see how my labelling any partcular one as divisive could be upsetting to someone.  Sorry to disturb your peace. Hopefully you are faithful to the true faith. You never gave me sources for the quotes you have in a previous post.  God bless, Pam

New Observer,  Yes, I was raised in the Catholic faith by a devout mother. I am old enough to have been raised with weekly confession, nine first Fridays, and five first Saturdays, weekly stations of the cross during lent, holy hours, family rosary,etc.  What you are upset about has evolved over time.  We lost our way.  From my experience it began in the 60’s when the sexual revolution unfolded.  Kids were using drugs, having casual sex etc. and their parents were devastated.  No one had seen such radical behavior.  Parents knew Church teaching.  They knew their kids were sinning.  But they were terribly torn.  They weren’t as strong in faith as Abraham, willing to give their child to God trusting that He would give the child back, so they allowed behaviours the Church forbid.  They ignored promiscuity as best they could to try to hold on to their children.  They struggled through addictions and family turmoil and they chose family over God.  The priests were ignored and started to pull back from preaching the whole truth.  We have gone astray and the road back is the same as it has always been. I pray we are willing to follow the path to recovery.

Pam, how I sound to you is your interpretation.  In your own words, “Maybe what you see in the posts of others is a reflection of you.”  Could that be that the case?  If you knew my peace, you’d know you haven’t disturbed it.  As to source of the quoted words, they come from the work of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Dawn where is the love in how you present your ideas? If your peace was not disturbed, why comment at all? Sorry you can’t admit your pride and sorry you don’t think words having meaning on their “face”.  Perhaps written words should be banned then?  No communication is possible according to your way of thinking. You might benefit from reading “The Emperors New Clothes”. Common sense isn’t so common any more. I wish you the best.  God bless you.

Pam, I had not heard that one has to be disturbed in order to comment, but perhaps that is your custom?  For me it is pleasant to read and to write.  You ask “where is the love in how you present your ideas”, but again, in your own words, “Maybe what you see in the posts of others is a reflection of you.”  Could that be the case?  You dictate that “no communication is possible according to your way of thinking”, but if that’s what you think, whose “way of thinking” is that?  I do not claim communication is not possible or advocate that “written words should be banned”.  Some disturbed people write as a form of therapy, even if it’s just to themselves.  Perhaps you have tried it?

Dawn, To be clear, that is not the case either that I have to be disturbed to comment or that I am projecting any more than has to take place to communicate.  Every person brings their experiences into how they see or hear.  We live in the same world.  We belong to the same Church, correct? or maybe you aren’t Catholic! We have common teachings and we, in wisdom, should be using them as guides in discernment.  You say on the one hand anyone who disagrees is putting their own interpretation to all words and on the other that people can understand each other.  Your logic falls apart in there somewhere. Your last comment is not worth addressing.  Perhaps you should follow your own advice since you don’t care to hear anything that disagrees with your opinion.  I pray for you.  God bless.

Pam, the “logic” you allege “falls apart in there somewhere” is your interpretation, and whatever it is that “you say” I say is what you say.  My “last comment” involved no “advice”; I do not advise you to write any thing.  And as to your opinion that “you don’t care to hear anything that disagrees with your opinion”, need I remind you that anything you say, as I read it, however that may be, never disagrees with my opinion.

Dawn,

I’ve just been able to catch up on what’s been said here.
You said to me:
***What I said was that chastity and fidelity provide limited protection against HIV/STDs.  And that’s true whether or not you’re open to fertility in marriage or not.  If you thought I was advocating that married people use illicit contraception between husband and wife, I recommend you revise your thinking.***

So I’m just trying to understand what exactly are you advocating?  Abstinence for married people?

Isn’t there a moderator somewhere?

Dawn,  The Emperor’s New Clothes. God bless.

My fellow Catholics and all other Christian brothers and sisters:

We can all communicate and share ideas peacefully.  There is no need for a moderator/censor. 

Our church is exactly like The Emperor’s New Clothes child’s book.  And it is time for all of us to speak up, and listen and learn from each other.

My source is the Bible Number One - as it is the Gold Standard of Measure and there are NO gray areas in it.  Scripture truths are crystal clear.

I’m so glad Pope Benedict suggested that we all READ Sacred Scripture, so we can be prepared to give a reason for our faith, and the hope that lies within us.  Now that will please God.

Teach basic morals from the Moral Law Giver to everyone, and there will be little need for talk about condoms, AIDS, prostitutes: male/female, etc.  We only need to abide by His teachings, and “resist the devil and he will flee.”  He who is in us (the Holy Spirit) is greater than he who is in the world.

New Observer: your posts about sin, etc. are spot on target, and I too, heard about the 8 minute homilies.  “Homilettes produce Chritianettes.”

WE NEED MEAT.  CATHOLICS ARE HUNGRY FOR BIBLE TRUTHS PREACHED IN CONTEXT AND IN TOTAL.  I know Catholics that attend Mass on Sunday mornings and then they go to Bible-teaching churches to learn and to teach their kids the faith.  WE NEED EXPOSITORY PREACHING ON SUNDAYS, WITH THE BIBLE VERSES OPENED, AND EXPLAINED TO US.

Kathy, you asked “what exactly are you advocating?”  Such a wonderful question.  In the words of the Holy Father, “the Church supports every authentic quest of the human mind.”  This is a wonderful advocacy, and indeed, the desires for communication and expressions of the inexhaustible creativity of the human spirit directed towards the fullness of truth are truly remarkable.

And to whoever was or is interested in “eight-minute homilies”, I heard that it’s an advisory guideline intended to foster communication rather than to limit it.  It is “useful to remember that in general the homily should not be longer than eight minutes, the average time listeners can concentrate,” said the secretary-general for the Synod of Bishops, Archbishop Nikola Eterovic.  Is eight minutes a long time in an era of soundbites?  How long is it between TV commercials?

If you follow “Talk Radio,” you learn that seldom does the host spend more than 8 minutes on the air between commercials.

Dawn writes:
“Is eight minutes a long time in an era of soundbites?  How long is it between TV commercials?”

Dawn, you falling into the trap that people “hungry” for genuine teaching,—those with a passion to know God more—are unable or unwilling to pay attention for longer than 8 minutes.  It is no wonder many Catholics do not know what the church teaches about certain behaviors and morals because they are never explained.  Actually, a well prepared homily can be enunciated in 8 minutes.  However, as John Schuh has posted earlier, most homilies are awful, ill prepared and typically do not even focus on the OT, NT and Gospel readings just prior.  It makes you wonder what they teach in our seminaries and how committed the current clergy are to God’s Word.  Since the focus of the mass really is the Eurcharist —they move quickly past the homily to the central part and thus no teaching ever really materializes.  This is why so many Catholics can sit in the pew for 50, 60 or 80 years and never advance their knowledge of God beyond 6th grade Catechism learned at 12 years old.  IMO, this is a disservice to the people.  Then again, if we do not end mass “on time” the parking lot will not clear out to make room for people coming for the next mass.

Indeed, many Catholics do go to the Bible churches seeking exposition of Scripture, and what they get
is half truths, because their preachers are convinced that for a thousand years or more the Gospel was corrupted by the Church.  Indeed, they are even convinced that the great Councils of the Church taught falsely, and so they have less in common with us than the Protestant Reformers, Luther and Calvin, men who read the Fathers. They ignore history or leave it to renegade Catholics and liberals to accuse the Church of suppressing the Truth.  They ironically put themselves into the power of enemies of Christianity, men who teach that Christ has not come, that Jesus either did not exist or was deluded or was an imposter, a false messiah.  The simple truth that the Bible is the book of the Church, a treasure handed down by the Church and possessed by them only because of the Church.
But the Holy Scriptures are also a difficult book, because not a single book but one demanding interpreters. IUnfortunately, our priests—our bishops even—do not see the need to take up this task.  The Scripture are as much a part of the liturgy as the Eucharist, but we do not see it that way. Even many Catholics do not see it that way. The Church must make it clear that the Scriptures do present Christ to use, that the two “parts” of the mass are in fact seamless.

New Observer, the offered question (“Is eight minutes a long time in an era of soundbites?”) does not say that I believe that “people ‘hungry’ for genuine teaching… are unable or unwilling to pay attention for longer than 8 minutes.”  And I don’t believe Archbishop Eterovic’s statement was referring strictly to them.  Again, he reportedly said it is “useful to remember that in general the homily should not be longer than eight minutes, the average time listeners can concentrate.”  Such a statement does not say who these “listeners” are, what they’re listening to, how one defines “can concentrate”, how the “average” is calculated or on what basis he makes the claim.  Perhaps he was indirectly referring to data collected on TV watching and the average length of a TV cartoon, or corporate executive attention span studies, or teenage children in a Peoria public school classroom, or who knows what, perhaps even something heard in a soundbite or gleaned from book titles like the “Eight Minute Makeover” or “Seven Minutes with the Holy Spirit”, and thus the question.  Perhaps the book “The Word of God” explains in greater detail, or perhaps not.  Fr. Timothy Reilly reportedly had this to say about it, “We must interpret Archbishop Eterovic’s estimate as a reasonable suggestion… Certainly, his observations about the human attention span would resonate with those entrusted with the sacred duty to preach the Sunday homily… We must remember that Pope Benedict himself rarely finishes a Sunday homily within 10 minutes… So, we might say the archbishop was offering insightful ‘homily hints.’”

I know two priests that are very nice, as people, but their accent is SO hard to understand (one is Vietnamese, the other from the Philippines) that it would be almost painful to have to listen to them speak for longer than 8 minutes.

Even trying my hardest, I understand 3 out of their every 5 words.  It’s not their fault.  They would be best suited in parishes with congregations that spoke their own languages.

A friend lives in the countryside, and he is an older man (around mid seventies).  He asked me, “Does your priest read from a paper instead of delivering a homily about the readings?”  Turns out his pastor, and all other priests in his area, were trained in the Philippines and they just read from “some paper”.

I suggested to him that he ask to borrow the paper, so he could read for himself what’s on it.  He can’t understand what’s being read.  He said it has nothing to do with the Sunday readings - either OT or NT epistle or the Gospel readings.

When my friend asked a priest he knew from our area, that priest told him these newer priests are not trained the way the priests in American seminaries are, and he’s “lucky to have a priest there to say Mass.”

So much for teaching and learning.  How I pray for expository preaching, where the Bible is opened, and there are paperback Bibles in EACH PEW, so Catholics can read not only the text, but study the context of each reading too, prior to Mass starting.  Paperback Catholic Bibles can be purchased at very, very little cost, in bulk.—around $1.50 each.

My prayer - a paperback Catholic Bible in every seat in EVERY PEW, like the hymnals and missalette books.  They’d cost LESS than the hymnals and the missalettes.  And it’s the Word of God!

We are back to the pre-Reformation days and the “dumb’” priests—curates with no education.  The cure for the lack of preaching is the training of more deacons. They can do the preaching and distribute communion even when there is no mass.

Seems that way, John.  For at least some of us Catholics, we have had enough of granting instant respect for someone wearing a collar without hearing what he has to say about God’s Word —the Gospel—and how prepared he is to preach and teach it.  If all we do is look at clergy as “officially” ordained distributors of the Eucharist, well, we can get that from deacons.  We need pastors with a passion for Christ.  Sadly, IMO, few are demonstrating that.  Jesus told Joseph and Mary that HE “must be about my Father’s business.”  When I look around now, I see the business of the Catholic church—especially in my diocese, to be about “corporate business.”  The quest and pursuit for money has become insatiable.  The business and ministry of Jesus —He said was to “save the lost and set the captives free.”  How many of our clergy today see their primary objective as did Jesus —to save the lost?  The structure and focus of the church today needs re-tooling back to basics as outlined in ACTS and in Paul’s letters.

I think you guys are being grossly unfair. Our pastor is not the best preacher in the world, but he is currently suffering pneumonia because he has totally worn himself sick working 18 hour days. He says three Masses on Sunday, daily Mass five days a week, hears confessions, visits the elderly in the nearby nursing home,gets called at all hours to the hospital to administer last rites to those near death, sits in on ministry meetings, counsels couples preparing for marriage, oversees administration of the church, etc., etc.

Do you guys put in those kind of hours?

Do you pray for your priests? Or do you just criticize them?

Joanne, I grant you there is no doubt many clergy are truly devoted.  Still, there are others who are dictatorial and fail to delegate many tasks—for their own reasons.  It certainly is not God’s will they become worn out and sick in the Lord’s service.  Other clergy should be using the professionals and lay volunteers in their own parish to help carry the burden instead of either keeping total control to themselves or catering only to the parish “elite.”  And yes, I do “put in” those kinds of hours.  Were you in my parish and diocese, your opinion might be different.  As in your own job or profession, you too are evaluated for your effectiveness and performance.  Clergy should not be immune from the same merits of evaluation.  They do not walk on water.

We have a priest shortage, and only priests can hear Confessions, say Mass, give Last Rights etc., so he can’t just delegate these things to laity or even a deacon.

My point in my earlier post is simply to be fair. I don’t know what is so different about your parish than anyone else’s, but we have laity who do help in a variety of ministries. I myself am involved in numerous ministries, and you probably know that it’s the same people who carry the load because most in the parish refuse to get involved at all.

Our priests are not perfect because only the High priest Jesus Christ is, but I can’t think of one priest that I know of who isn’t doing his very best. Surely you can find something that your priest is doing right.

My complaint is that Preaching does not seem to be valued the way it ought. It is as though, in the back of their minds, priests think of it as secondary, and not worthy of the time they need to do it well. My pastor is a good preacher, and I expect that he will sometimes be great and sometimes not so great, and am happy that he is high average, a solid “B”.  But when you know what power there is in a great sermon, in the spoken word itself.you regret that we rest content with less.  What is the use of proclaiming Scripture when we know how obscure so much of it is to the congregants. Some of the fault is in what is in the lectionaries. Why, for instance, have the entire 35th Chapter of Isaiah, or a whole chapter of “Hebrews.”?  Without follow up by a homily tying the selections together, often what we hear are disconnected snatches.

I do think that the preaching we had in the 1950s and 1960s was much better because the priests applied what the gospel to our everyday lives. Today, what we get is social justice up the kazoo—usually by the very deacons some think should do more of the preaching. The priests of yesteryear were also more willing to confront sin in their homilies, whereas today there is too much fear of offending people in the pews.

That’s why we have young adults living together and not even knowing they are living in sin, as hard as that might be for us to believe. Women who are suffering from post-abortion syndrome don’t generally know that the church provides counseling and reconciliation, simply because some pastors worry that saying anything on the subject will “upset” them. So we continue to have couples being sterilized, going for in vitro fertilization etc. without knowing where the church stands on these.

Even the protestant preachers don’t get into those subjects for the same reason. I love listening to Joyce Meyer on TV because she applies scripture to areas of concern I encounter in my own life (being critical, negative, angry at times, etc.) and how she uses the word of God to replace such negatives with positives—something I wish our priests would do to make scripture practical to living everyday life. But don’t think even a Joyce Meyer will address the “big ticket items” either.

I do know our cardinal has expressed some concern that his priests and deacons need better training to be more effective in their teaching, so maybe this area will be addressed in the future.

This is a long way off the subject of this thread re: the pope and his statement on condoms, but I take it where it leads.

Two words:

EXPOSITORY PREACHING.  We need the Word of God preached, in full and in context, by priests that understand the faith, and that can teach it.

Until fellow Roman Catholics can explain, IN THEIR OWN WORDS, the nature and the function of the Trinity (especially the Holy Spirit in their lives) the process of Justification, Sanctification and Glorification, and what God expects of us, the Body of Christ in the world, then it will be more of the same:  clergy will remain “Sacrament Dispensers”.
Hardly anything they do (though they work hard, and for many of them, non-stop, making themselves sick) will have eternal value.

Presiding at Mass three times a day for a congregation that may not be saved is missing the point of the reason for an ordained clergy.  For a bishop to have a packed schedule, overseeing ceremonies for all his parishes, and seeing to it that Catholic groups run smoothly is a hollow victory, if the SOULS in those groups are not saved.

For the record, the folks in a nearby parish are very wealthy, and their pastor was treated to an all-expenses paid trip to the Holy Land for one month last year.  This year, he took the month of July off, to go on a retreat, and he took the month of Septemeber off, to go to Florence, Rome and Paris.

Not a word was mentioned in ANY parish in this area this weekend, and tomorrow, Dec. 6th, a potentially left-wing judge will be hearing arguments on Prop 8 in California, a measure that if it fails, will call for same-sex marriage in the state.

MANY Catholics in this area support same=sex marriage.  UGH.  The traveling pastor remains quiet.  The bishop in this area went on a 3 month holiday smack dab during the elections of Nov. 2008, when Prop 8 was on the ballot.  Another UGH. 

The childen of God are not to be held hostage to these priests/bishops that are fearful or just unwilling to TEACH HIS WORD.

Pew people could educate themselves and teach the word -fulfilling the Great Commission.

Thank you, Joanne S. —and U2, Cradle.  Joanne —thanks for the reminder that many priests try very hard to do the best they can and yes,—not all are gifted homilists.  Often, church reality is confined to one’s experience inside his/her own parish and local diocese.  I admit I did benefit from your telling of your experience concerning your pastor, so thank you.  I too, have grown tired of the local bishop shoving “social justice” and his liberal open borders immigration position down our throats as if one’s authentic Catholicity hangs in the balance.  When people sneak into the United States and drain our tax dollars —excuse me—THAT is stealing and against the law.  My pastor also has a self-imposed policy of not visiting hospitals BEYOND a 10 mile limit of the church.  One parishioner last year was at a hospital 15 miles away.  The family told me the request to visit this person was denied because the hospital was too far away.  That is pathetic.  The previous pastor was willing to go anywhere (within reason) and often did.  I think people accept clergy who they see are doing their best.  They also can see when certain clergy are merely “mailing it in” with unprepared homilies and cater to the parish or diocesan elite naming such high rollers to influential boards, councils and commissions when others are left out who can equally make important contributions.

After Vatican II, there was a kind of rebellion against the Church.  Jacques Maritain, a darling of the Liberals until that time, came out with a book that looked darkly upon what was happening. The reformers were “geneflecting to the world,” he complained. Many of our older bishops were part of that crowd and they blindly proceeded to institute reforms that in effect dismissed all that had gone before, except of course the “social reforms” instituted by the popes.  These bishops and their immediate successors are very like the liberal cures of 18th Century France whose faith was eroded by a worship of the new sciences, a positivism that still affects so many in the Church.

This is all about nothing. Why anyone would write, buy, read or even care about what this man thinks, says or does on this issue is perplexing. The only reason I read any of this garbage is that I thought that it was an official RCC statement.

The RCC and the pope’s personal beliefs demonstrate an ongoing lack of basic knowledge of the AIDs issue. Furthermore, they are based on a belief system of the dark ages. Countries that are dealing with the realities of the 21st century need to throw out superstitions and educate their populations. The RCC is preventing this.

@sstv:

This is what your kind has been saying since the 1700s.  The immediate result was the reign of Terror. A longer range result was materialism and radical nationalism, culminating in totalitarianism, and the most horrific killing spree in world history. The immediate cause of AIDS is an rebellion against the feeble restraints of human culture, a giving up of oneself to the the impulses of the flesh, the desire to scratch every itch, even when the itch can be eliminated by simple cleanings of body and soul.  Condoms won’t do it, drugs want do it.  AIDS is the result of a person going where he/she should not go, which into the abyss. Dancing on a motorcycle at 70MPH.

Isn’t it amazing that the one country in Africa where the AIDs epidemic is being contained is Uganda, where the church’s promotion of abstinence and the repudiation of condoms testifies to the wisdom of the church?

Wherever condoms are promoted to solve the problem, the rates of AIDs skyrocket.

But heck, let’s not let facts get in the way of painting the church as “medieval.” Never mind that the church saved the world from the dark ages to begin with. Revisionist history would have one forget it was the church which built libraries, started universities, and preserved civilization from barbarians and invading Moslems.

Those who despise the church for ruining all their “fun” will eventually find that sin has a high price tag—with AIDs being just one consequence of unbridled lust and hedonistic lifestyles. Those who bury their heads in the sand to live as they desire may think themselves superior to “superstitious” Catholics, but they are the ones who are reaping the diseases, the heartaches and the empty lives. Let’s pray they wake up before that conclusion extends into eternity.

WOW - you are a little touchy… I NEVER said that the RCC members were superstitious. What I did say was that “Countries that are dealing with the realities of the 21st century need to throw out superstitions and educate their populations.”

The superstitions that are preventing AIDs in many countries are not the mainstream Christian beliefs. They are the practice of superstitions (cults, tribal beliefs, sects what ever you want to call them) that many of the impacted populations hold, preventing even the discussion of sexual health. Some are also cultural - with women not having basic rights.

The dark ages belief that I am referring to is the RCC’s role of females in society and the RCC’c view on popultion/birth control.

As for the RCC role in the Dark Ages… when you actually read the history (and not the revisionist history that the RCC allowed to survive the Dark Ages)the RCC was one of the reasons for the Dark Ages.

It is interesting that 98% of the writings that were “saved” by the RCC during the Dark Ages were their own writings? The RCC burned the others. No wonder Martin Luther had to go outside of Europe to locate an original Bible.

Many of the areas impacted by AIDs are the same ones that are impacted by overpopulation. It is the RCC belief in birthcontrol - which condoms are the cheapest - that are interferring with international funding and even the use of the ABC in most of the countries.

The RCC is preventing this. The RCC’s agenda to suppress the empowerment of women and their dark ages belief of family planning/birth control has a huge impact on most impacted countries. The RCC is stopping UN from including condoms and the education of population control in the AIDs impacted countries. The RCC has been actively doing this since 1998.

YES! I am pleased that Uganda is having success in controling their ages. Unforunately the areas in the Western Hemisphere with the highest AIDs rates are the ones that have the highest percentage of Catholics… St Lucia and Haiti. I do think that there is a relationship… most agree… it is the RCC views on condoms…

Joanne, I take your point.  I really do.  One thing, though, is that we give many of these third world nations far too much credit on face value for understanding.  When the church comes into one of these nations as missionaries, it not like dealing with western civilization.  Take Nigeria, for example.  I recently listened to a presentation by a missionary who spoke at church.  He said (among other things) you present Jesus and the Gospel to a large or small gathering.  They say:  “OK, I will accept “This Jesus —your Jesus” —and Jesus becomes just one of another host of gods (small “s”) they follow and worship.  This is not to say Christian missionaries are without success in helping win hearts to the Lord, however the cultural challenges are enormous.  It takes time.  So many of these nations are cultic and really do have local witch doctors.  The Catholic church and Evangelical church missionaries operating in such nations have all to do with helping people learn how to create sanitary conditions, grow crops, dig wells and help educate people in basics.  It is not as if you can walk in, set up shop and start to explain Paul’s letters to the church at Corinth.  It does take time.

New Observer, as you say, it takes a long while to transform a society, and there is always regression. It took a thousand years to create the several European cultures, and to inform them, to a degree with Christian values. But we have seen how Germany, the most progressive of the European cultures in the year 1900, was taken over by a movement that was more cruel than the worst of German barbarism. The work of centuries can be overturned in an hour.

Dude, you are on the cutting edge

Everyone - please read on page A-9 the piece entitled “Catholic Hospitals vs. Bishops” in the Friday, December 31st Wallstreet Journal. This shows how backwards the church is in dealing with modern medical issues. You may be able to google it for a few days for free. The piece is written by Anne Hendershott.

@sstv

It can also be read as how cavalier modern doctors are with human life.  It is always a danger for doctors to think they are dealing only with flesh. Fifty million abortions have made it hard for physicians to accept   the inconvenient truth that the unborn are persons.

SSTV: I did read the article you referred to, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203731004576046443911321586.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion
but I don’t know what you mean about the church being “backward” on modern medical issues. Surely you’re not saying that a “shadow magisterium” created by the hospital administrators has any authority at all in today’s Catholic church, are you? Bishop Olmstead is the authority in that archdiocese and his is the only authority that counts there.

The beauty of the Catholic Church is that Christ did not leave us guessing on matters of faith or morals, but authorized the pope and the bishops in communion with him—the true magisterium—to serve the church as guided by the Holy Spirit. When that is challenged, faithful Catholics must follow the true magisterium. I know I would like to be informed when a hospital calling itself Catholic is not, in fact, faithful to the church’s teachings or not.

Please elaborate on what you mean in your posting in case I’ve misunderstood your meaning. An unborn child directly killed, as happened in the case in point, is an intrinsic evil. Sterilizations performed in that hospital as a form of birth control would also be contrary to church teaching. The bishop went the extra mile to work with the hospital so he would not have to take the step he did, but it ballyhooed their disagreement to the press in an attempt to intimidate him. It’s about time the bishops start exercising their authority.

Joanne S., you wrote in your last sentence:  “It’s about time the bishops start exercising their authority.”  You know from Catholic life experience it is extremely rare for any bishop to act or take any stand independent from their collective organization.  They only issue “collective” statements rather than personally putting their own name to anything controversial.  This includes gay marriage.  They were silent when near the end of the Obamacare debate, the Catholic Nun in charge (or is her title President?) of the Catholic Hospital Association in the United States held a press briefing to endorse Obamacare knowing full well abortion will, in fact, be covered.  Why was this nun not dismissed and fired?  She was not taken to task nor was Stupack who folded in the House.  You can mark this down —Catholic hospitals will have to deal with coming lawsuits and revokable federal funds when they refuse to perform abortions once Obamacare kicks in.  As for the Bishops, Gen. Patton said it best:  “Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.”

New Observer, you are right about that.  And when individual bishops DO step up,like Brunkewicz, they risk being shunned. For a generation, the US church was dominated by the likes of the former Cardinal archbishops of Washington/Los Angeles.  Liberals, not Catholics, whom even the orthodox feared to take on. Now all the push is coming from a man who they never expected to be so tough, Pope Benedict, so the liberal phalanx is beginning to crack. They hop[e, of course, to outlast him. but for an 83-year old man, he has shown great energy. Ironically, ten years ago he was in rather delicate health, and I gather he has learned an important lesson, which is to marshal your strength, get plenty of rest, get people around you whom you can trust. and then do the best you can. My constant prayer is that he can continue for another five years or so. I read Seewald’s interview and I think, by golly, what a subtle mind this very old man has. He knows what he knows, and he knows a lot.

superb posting

I agree to youe site because very information i hope do not stop your work.
Thank you..

????? ??? ???? ?? ???????????)
?????? ????? ????????

Wonderful post and definitly worthy of my thank you comment.:)

I am not a RC.But an Evangelical.The Interview and comments placed here in this written by Jim Akin makes a lot of sense.I am not surprised that so many will distort what the Pope said here.He sees things in the natural sense and realizes the direction a person takes when he uses a condom,as it is better to use one for promiscuous sex,than to not use one and contact the HIV infection. Not saying that the condom is permissible for Christians,who should not be involved in fornication to begin with,but a person who uses one is moving rather in a direction to save himself and his sex partner from infection. Anyone who reads the pope’s statements with an open mind,can see that he is giving his opinion to the fact of two individuals who already have rejected abstinence and fidelity.

If you wish to use Windows 7, but you haven’t enough funds for purchase of the License disk with a key, you can install Windows 7 and use it throughout skilled time thirty days, however through this period it is necessary for you or to reinstall again OS or to inject a key but as own the Greatest for simply so any person doesn’t withdraw the Key of Activation of Windows 7, here on assistance the small program what the machine gun leads up makes active your OS.http://www.windowssoft.net.ru/load/aktivatory_windows/5

NewWorldMMM 2012, 30%-75% per month, ref 20% We Can More. MMM-2012 !!! JOIN http://newworldmmm.com/v2/?ten=650#ten

It seem the comments on this article show how bad information mal practice is. Many catholic are truly confused and thanks mr akin for pointing some in the right direction.

Good grief.  The most that the pope said was that its understandable that a starving man might eat human flesh. As for condoms, it is obvious that anyone who believes the oromises on condom dispensers in restrooms is someone with little experience of them.