Release of pope's comments on condoms a blunder or apologetic genius?

[Elizabeth502]

joan, and JR,

Why does it have to be so either/or? Why can’t there be a Third Way? Why can’t one of two things happen? (Or both these tertiary ideas?)

(1) The Pope can be guided, without compromising his intellectual standards, to add more direct ways of speaking to those in the world who are without the context familiar to him. (There is much consensus from those knowledgeable about the Vatican, that the communications center of the Vatican is in serious need of guidance, if the Church in Rome does want its messages to be received accurately.) If the Church doesn’t care about that, there’s no need for leadership in this; but most people would question that accuracy of recepiton is not desired.

(2) The Church’s representatives can re-orient and re-educate (Catholics and non-Catholics) about the premises on which the Pope’s statements are made. If more “translation” is desired, more introduction is desired, more mini-courses in foundational philosophy, the Church might want to consider whether the effort to do that is worth the ultimate result.

No, no one – including the Pope and his Vatican assistants and American representatives-- “has” to do any of this. But the hierarchy of the modern Church insists it does want to affect the moral direction of the world. To be understood, and even more – to be credible within the moral realm – effective communication (among other things) is essential.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Allow me to ask a personal question. Putting Seigel and Lawlord aside for a moment, not that they are to be ignored, but just give them a time-out, did you read the book? What are your impressions?

I have not yet read the book. I have no objection to reading it, and probably will, but OTOH, my understanding is not the issue. I am not the one confounded, or misquoting, or arguing conclusions with incorrect assumptions. I have been trained in the scholastic method and been given a thorough grounding in Catholic philosophy, which is the seed of Catholic moral theology (in which I also have been classically educated). I get the whole concept of the moral “conversion” of the male prostitute, and the context in which Benedict discussed condoms. It is not I who needs understanding. And Weigel and Lawlor, Kresta and Arroyo get it, I’m sure. People with such backgrounds are a fraction of the Pope’s audience. (See my post above, which was apparently cross-posted with yours.)

Having come from the same school as Ratzinger (I studied at Regensburg, 1974-77) and later in Rome. I was very young, but he was one of our professors on History of Dogma. I find it easy to understand him. I did not come away with the red flags that other people are claiming. I saw it for what it is. He’s answering questions and has to keep his answers to the point and succinct. I’m also well-versed in Augustine and Bonaventure, which guide his manner of speaking and thinking.

as am I.

I feel that I can read what he has not said.

as can I.

 

[joandarc2008]

No, no one – including the Pope and his Vatican assistants and American representatives-- “has” to do any of this. But the hierarchy of the modern Church insists it does want to affect the moral direction of the world. To be understood, and even more – to be credible within the moral realm – effective communication (among other things) is essential.

Very simply put - if I am not medically trained I should not go buy a Physicians Desk Reference and try to prescribe medications to people on the street even if I am only treating them with over the counter medications. Something could be more wrong with them and I could end up doing more damage. So therefore unless I have that level of training to understand the book why am I buying and reading it unless I am doing it in conjunction with some form of formation or training. The same is true for Vatican documents and writings. Except that medical books save the body. Theological doctrines are more important as they will affect what happens with us after. It is not about affecting the moral direction of the world - Christ has already given us a fine map of right and wrong - it is about making that map more clear on the backdrop of modern technological advances of sin and the Culture of Death.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It is not about affecting the moral direction of the world - Christ has already given us a fine map of right and wrong - it is about making that map more clear on the backdrop of modern technological advances of sin and the Culture of Death.

Many in the hierarchy would take issue with that statement. JP2, Benedict, Cardinals, Bishops, and priests have declared that the modern church does have a mission to effect moral change, as well as to evangelize. I think they understand that evangelization is not sufficient. They understand that total evangelization moves more slowly than moral situations, dilemmas, and influences do. They need to engage those not yet evangelized by “the map of Christ.” They desire, in their words, to impact the non-believing world and the non-Christian world.

 

[JReducation]

joan, and JR,

Why does it have to be so either/or? Why can’t there be a Third Way? Why can’t one of two things happen? (Or both these tertiary ideas?)

(1) The Pope can be guided, without compromising his intellectual standards, to add more direct ways of speaking to those in the world who are without the context familiar to him. (There is much consensus from those knowledgeable about the Vatican, that the communications center of the Vatican is in serious need of guidance, if the Church in Rome does want its messages to be received accurately.) If the Church doesn’t care about that, there’s no need for leadership in this; but most people would question that accuracy of recepiton is not desired.

I have heard this proposed before. What I have heard is that Pope Benedict does not want the outside guidance. I was not there, so I can’t say if this is true. I’m just sharing what I’ve heard. Having had the man as a teacher (though he was much younger), I can tell you that he was very kind, but very stubborn on the role of authority. Pope John Paul was much more open to this kind of suggestion. My take is that Pope Benedict leaves this work to the local Churches to do. THAT’S MY IMPRESSION.

(2) The Church’s representatives can re-orient and re-educate (Catholics and non-Catholics) about the premises on which the Pope’s statements are made. If more “translation” is desired, more introduction is desired, more mini-courses in foundational philosophy, the Church might want to consider whether the effort to do that is worth the ultimate result.

I believe that this is what he wants. He wants to local Churches to run with the ball.

No, no one – including the Pope and his Vatican assistants and American representatives-- “has” to do any of this. But the hierarchy of the modern Church insists it does want to affect the moral direction of the world. To be understood, and even more – to be credible within the moral realm – effective communication (among other things) is essential.

Again, it’s the job of the local bishops to do the work at the local level.

I don’t know what else to tell you. In one sense, I may have you or others at a disadvantage. As a Franciscan, we are bound, under pain of excommunication to understand the pope and bishops. Those Franciscans who do not are often dismissed or sanctioned by the General Council. To be faithful to Francis, we have to work over and over until we understand. Our questions must never be to question the orthodoxy of any pope or bishop, but to question our orthodoxy when we feel a knee-jerk reaction coming on. This places us in a very unique position, because we HAVE TO understand. When we don’t, we assume culpability. It’s usually due to some inappropriate awareness of self that does not belong there and has to be eradicated for the sake of true poverty and simplicity.

I come at this from a very simple perspective. “Popes and bishops are always right. We are wrong. Therefore, we must root out the evil in us that interfere.” To be faithful to Francis, we read these things again and again. We look at other writings by the same popes or bishops and try to find what we missed. When all else fails, we simply assent. It simplifies life so that we can move on with our daily lives.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Many in the hierarchy would take issue with that statement. JP2, Benedict, Cardinals, Bishops, and priests have declared that the modern church does have a mission to effect moral change, as well as to evangelize. I think they understand that evangelization is not sufficient. They understand that total evangelization moves more slowly than moral situations, dilemmas, and influences do. They need to engage those not yet evangelized by “the map of Christ.” They desire, in their words, to impact the non-believing world and the non-Christian world.

I’m not so sure that one can separate evangelization and moralization. It’s certainly contrary to Augustinian and Franciscan thought.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[joandarc2008]

Many in the hierarchy would take issue with that statement. JP2, Benedict, Cardinals, Bishops, and priests have declared that the modern church does have a mission to effect moral change, as well as to evangelize. I think they understand that evangelization is not sufficient. They understand that total evangelization moves more slowly than moral situations, dilemmas, and influences do. They need to engage those not yet evangelized by “the map of Christ.” They desire, in their words, to impact the non-believing world and the non-Christian world.

I apologize that was my miscommunication - yes the Church does Evangelize - but what I was trying to make clear was that in this particular instance there was no moral change to be affected. So yes - while the Magisterium may set in place a map to engage those not yet evangelized as you so elegantly put it and yes even some who have been less than thrillingly evangelized in less than stellar catechesis there was no change to the dynamic morals within the existing Church membership.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’m not so sure that one can separate evangelization and moralization. It’s certainly contrary to Augustinian and Franciscan thought.

I don’t know that it’s a matter of “separation” as in parallel universes. I think it’s a two-pronged effort, but one cannot “wait” for the ideal environment and ultimate understanding which coincides with spirtuality. The back door sometimes has to be tried.

The Church converses all the time with entities in the world, and religions of the world, with which it fundamentally disagrees. She still tries to exert influence – to get that ‘window’ of possible conversion, such as the Pope discusses relative to the fictional example of the male prostitute.

Isolation is not the answer. Nor is waiting for full evangelization as a prerequisite to moral change.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I apologize that was my miscommunication - yes the Church does Evangelize - but what I was trying to make clear was that in this particular instance there was no moral change to be affected.

No, but there was moral illumination that was sought.

So yes - while the Magisterium may set in place a map to engage those not yet evangelized as you so elegantly put it and yes even some who have been less than thrillingly evangelized in less than stellar catechesis there was no change to the dynamic morals within the existing Church membership.

I’m not quite sure what you mean here. Do you mean that catechesis and/or reluctant evangelization have no affect on moral behavior? Well, of course that’s true, in that the way to moral change is not necessarily an intellectual project, but one of the will and heart. Jesus is clear on that, and so is the church and her saints. But for the world, those who have not been (yet) evangelized, particularly those with no faith, but who are in positions to influence others morally (such as political, educational, and legal institutions), rational understanding is often, if not always, essential to persuasion.

 

[joandarc2008]

No, but there was moral illumination that was sought.

I’m not quite sure what you mean here. Do you mean that catechesis and/or reluctant evangelization have no affect on moral behavior? Well, of course that’s true, in that the way to moral change is not necessarily an intellectual project, but one of the will and heart. Jesus is clear on that, and so is the church and her saints. But for the world, those who have not been (yet) evangelized, particularly those with no faith, but who are in positions to influence others morally (such as political, educational, and legal institutions), rational understanding is often, if not always, essential to persuasion.

No I am not saying that evangelization has no affect on moral behavior. Of course it does - assuming the evangelization affects the person being evangelized to. What I am saying is that Pope Benedict the XVI changed no moral doctrine in his book. He clarified and taught.

 

[Lost_Found]

The problem is the interview format.

Take Barbara Walters’ interview with Obama a couple weeks back. The interviewee had just one hour on the hot seat. For that brief period, the interviewee had complete control over his message; very guarded responses.

Now if Barbara Walters had spent a full week hanging out with Obama at camp David, she would have got much more out of him. When you spend a week with someone, the conversation will stray in directions you don’t expect. It decreases the interviewee’s control - an interviewer’s dream – and even more so for the Seewald interview when the Pope was so at-ease at his summer residence…Supposing it takes a few days in such a setting to reach that level of discussion; but then it ends up in a book where a couple pages earlier, there’s some unrelated topic… While I wish he would not have gone down that road - the circuitous hypothetical scenario of a homosexual prostitute with aids…all moral wrongs to begin with – then if, and that is if, our Holy Father made a mistake, it would be that he accepted the one-week cozy interview format that made him so vulnerable. But like others, I see the Lord’s specialty is to convert minuses to pluses and make all things new.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The problem is the interview format.

It was one of the problems, but according to George Weigel, not the only one. As he stated publicly on EWTN, he still disagrees with the Pope’s choice of male prostitutes in the book (as an example to elucidate moral principles), and he still believes strongly (as do other Vatican commentators) that the Vatican in general is out of touch with the way the general public reacts to any kind of communication (books, interviews, whatever) from Rome. He (and Phil Lawlord) believe that this situation is correctable and should be corrected yesterday.

 

[JReducation]

The problem is the interview format.

Take Barbara Walters’ interview with Obama a couple weeks back. The interviewee had just one hour on the hot seat. For that brief period, the interviewee had complete control over his message; very guarded responses.

Now if Barbara Walters had spent a full week hanging out with Obama at camp David, she would have got much more out of him. When you spend a week with someone, the conversation will stray in directions you don’t expect. It decreases the interviewee’s control - an interviewer’s dream – and even more so for the Seewald interview when the Pope was so at-ease at his summer residence…Supposing it takes a few days in such a setting to reach that level of discussion; but then it ends up in a book where a couple pages earlier, there’s some unrelated topic… While I wish he would not have gone down that road - the circuitous hypothetical scenario of a homosexual prostitute with aids…all moral wrongs to begin with – then if, and that is if, our Holy Father made a mistake, it would be that he accepted the one-week cozy interview format that made him so vulnerable. But like others, I see the Lord’s specialty is to convert minuses to pluses and make all things new.

Let’s clarify a few things.

1. Seewald did not spend a week with the Holy Father. He was given six hours, one hour per day.
2. He gave the Holy Father the questions in advance.
3. The Holy Father never mention male homosexuals. He mentioned male prostitutes.
4. If one reads the response in its totality, the example is a very good, because it fits his response. He’s saying that even in this case, where one can say that the person is choosing protection because there is some moral conscience at work, the condom is still not the answer to the AIDS epidemic. The question was aboiut the AIDS epidemic and the pope’s statement in Africa, which was also taken out of context. When he responds to the question, Seewald did not quite understand the answer. Seewald then says, “Help me understand, do you mean that it may be permissible to use a condom?” That’s when the Holy Father says, The use of a condom by a male prostitute may be justifiably undestood as a sign of some moral responsibility that can lead to a human sexual development. However, it is not the solution to the problem.

That’s how the example was used. There is nothing there that is theologically or philosophically a mistake. There are times when people, even when committing a grave sin, show some sign of morality. The action is still sinful, but parts of it may be positive signs, what we would say in plain English, there is at least one redeeming quality in all of this. He stole the purse, be did not do physical harm to his victim. That’s just an example of my own.

Read the entire book and you will see the whole trend of thinking that Pope Benedict is following and the purpose of the book. Seewald is trying to present a portrait of how the pope is dealing with some big issues in the Church today. He’s after a bigger picture.

The pope was in full control of the interview. He knew the questions in advance. He proofread the manuscript before going to press. He was warned that the condom comment would raise some hackles and he said that it did not firghten him, because he knew what he meant and those in positions of leadership and education could explain it the philosophical principles behind it. The book did not lend itself to long-winded explanations of philosophy and ethics. The answers had to be succinct to fit into six-hours.

What I believe is happening is two things. Some people are capitalizing by taking the statement out of context. Others are upset and calling it a mistake. When the Holy Father’s hope was that Catholic theologians, bishops, religious educators and leaders would be able to calmly explain it, just as he calmly explained the big misunderstanding about Fatima. He said one thing in Fatima and it was taken to mean that there is going to be some supernatural occurrence in the next few years. He said, those are my words, but that’s not my meaning.

His hope for this was that we would be able to say, those are his words, but that’s not his meaning. His meaning is that even when there is a sign of moral thought, the use of condoms is not the moral solution to the AIDS crisis.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[PaulineOsinachi]

Thanks, but this very idea is what troubles me.

An advocate of abortion for an example, has good intentions to save the mother’s life. But the practice of it is morally wrong. Similarly, someone with HIV considering sexual activity is already wrong. The proper thing to do is to abstain. Two wrongs can’t make it a right no?

God Bless

It’s not just about intentions. Remember that the reason condoms are wrong is because they serve as contraceptives. In the case of a male prostitute it cant serve as a contraceptive because a homosexual union is already infertile in itself thus the desire to protect one’s partner is the only issue left and can be viewed as a first step towards assuming responsiblity for one’s actions. It is not the end but a step in the right direction

 

[JReducation]

Just a quick reminder. The Vatican made it clear that the term “male prostitute” did not mean gay. It meant men who are prostitutes. These can be gay or straight.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[joandarc2008]

So today I went to Barnes and Noble to buy Light of the World. Why did I wait? Why Barnes and Noble? Well it was because they were giving part of the profits from book sales to our parish’s Catholic school. So I couldn’t find it. So I went and talked to the manager. Wouldn’t you know they had only one copy left. And now they have none. So maybe all of the mass media scandal got exactly the reaction it was supposed to get. People are not only reading what the Pope has to say - they are buying the book - from Secular book stores nonetheless. I am sure places like catholic.com and CAF are having an even harder time keeping it stocked. So lets be real this is not your grandparent’s Pope. This is cool. It is now the “in-thing” to read the Pope. Pretty awesome.

 

[JReducation]

The sad part of this whole thing is that there are Catholics who did not read the book and yet are commenting on what the pope said. Call me an old man, because I am. I remember when I was studying theology in Rome, back in the 1970s. The Pontifical Universities had a rule, which was a healthy and safe rule. You had to read before you spoke. Obviously, no one was going to put you in time-out, if you broke the rule. But people made it a point to embarrass you, even in public. I attended two Pontifical Universities and both were equally ruthless. My point is that we seem to be losing the rigors of Catholic scholarship.

It is important to become familiar with a work, not just a citation from a work. A citation from a work may be prudent or imprudent. Be that as it may. The Holy Father could have used a better example. But the point that he makes in that portion of the book is far from imprudent and very consistent with the traditional moral teaching of the Church. We have to read the whole thing to see what it is that he is teaching.

He makes two valid points:

1. 
   *]Condoms are not the solution.
   
   *]A person who thinks about the risks involved to himself or another is having a lucid moment, which may lead to a more integrated sexuality.
   
   The part where we would be challenged if we were posting on one of the sites of the great Pontifical Universities, would be the question about the entire book. The entire book, as a whole, has a thesis. That thesis makes a statement about the state of the world, the Church’s place in the world and the role of the pope in leading the Church in today’s world, not yesterday’s or tomorrow’s world.
   
   I find it impoverishing that none of the threads on CAF deal with the thesis of the book. Too many threads single out citations. If someone asked us, “What did the book say about today’s world, the place of the Church in today’s world and how does Pope Benedict explain his role in today’s Church?” Can anyone on this thread answer that question?
   
   We, Catholics, have to step up to the plate and answer the question As long as we are unable to answer the question, the media will win the day.
   
   I read the entire book and came away with a very positive feeling and very ready to answer the question about the condom and many other subjects in that book.
   
   Fraternally,
   
   Br. JR, OSF

 

[Elizabeth502]

The sad part of this whole thing is that there are Catholics who did not read the book and yet are commenting on what the pope said.

Why are you assuming that no one has a right to comment on anything the Pope says (including if they understand fully what he says) unless they have read, in full, every respective book, encyclical, etc.? Maybe you feel you “don’t have a right to comment” on what secular politicans say, just because you haven’t read all their books, all their PR releases and policy statements as well as the particular speech you are commenting on?

I’m sorry; I think that’s unreasonable. I, for example, am selecting out a particular example the Pope uses. It doesn’t mean that I don’t understand that example in its context, that I don’t understand thoroughly the moral theology behind it; I do; and I don’t need to “read the whole book” to understand the one piece from the book.

The difference is, as thoroughly as I understand the Pope, I also thoroughly understand the modern media outlets and their audiences. I don’t happen to like these audiences’ and outlets’ ‘sound-bite’ mentality to information, their preference for superficiality, and their apparent inability (more like unwilingness) to dive into logical systems that aren’t conceptually familiar to them. Even in anthropology classes in college we learned that in order to understand a culture (in this case, the Roman Catholic culture), it was necessary to understand wholly different premises than one’s culture of familiarity; otherwise, their world-view, their moral priorities, their spirituality, their governing structures, would not be understood. It’s perhaps laziness, and/or a lack in the ability to read complex informaiton critically, analytically, that causes such distaste for depth.

However the same thing can be said the other way. There is such a thing as becoming too comfortably isolated in one’s own world view. The Church is supposed to be in the world, not of it, but in order to function within it, the Church needs to appreciate how the Church’s messages are being received. The Pope doesn’t talk just to himself and to Vatican insiders, or even just to the Church universal. He talks to the secular world constantly: to the world in general, to heads of state in particular (and the populations represented by those), etc. He wants to be understood. I agree that clearly he wants to be understood on his own terms. But the examples and images he provides are not necessarily received in the way that the Pope intends, with his advisors, that they be received, and it was to this that George Weigel and Phil Lawlord were speaking.

Reading the book will not guarantee agreement with the selection of images and examples. It certainly didn’t for George Weigel and Phil Lawlord, who have read the book and understand the same papal moral arguments that I understand.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I find it impoverishing that none of the threads on CAF deal with the thesis of the book. Too many threads single out citations.

I appreciate your disappointment, Brother, but given that I have read some of these threads quite thoroughly, I think that many posters are reflecting dismay at how they understand the Pope will be quoted out of context; that’s why they are “singling out citations.” (some of them) Yes, others do not know their faith well (due somewhat to poor catechesis), but the ones who do nevertheless have legitimate concerns about what has been taken away already by the secular media, and what will continue to be.

 

[joandarc2008]

The sad part of this whole thing is that there are Catholics who did not read the book and yet are commenting on what the pope said. Call me an old man, because I am. I remember when I was studying theology in Rome, back in the 1970s. The Pontifical Universities had a rule, which was a healthy and safe rule. You had to read before you spoke. Obviously, no one was going to put you in time-out, if you broke the rule. But people made it a point to embarrass you, even in public. I attended two Pontifical Universities and both were equally ruthless. My point is that we seem to be losing the rigors of Catholic scholarship.

It is important to become familiar with a work, not just a citation from a work. A citation from a work may be prudent or imprudent. Be that as it may. The Holy Father could have used a better example. But the point that he makes in that portion of the book is far from imprudent and very consistent with the traditional moral teaching of the Church. We have to read the whole thing to see what it is that he is teaching.

He makes two valid points:

1. 
   *]Condoms are not the solution.
   
   *]A person who thinks about the risks involved to himself or another is having a lucid moment, which may lead to a more integrated sexuality.
   
   The part where we would be challenged if we were posting on one of the sites of the great Pontifical Universities, would be the question about the entire book. The entire book, as a whole, has a thesis. That thesis makes a statement about the state of the world, the Church’s place in the world and the role of the pope in leading the Church in today’s world, not yesterday’s or tomorrow’s world.
   
   I find it impoverishing that none of the threads on CAF deal with the thesis of the book. Too many threads single out citations. If someone asked us, “What did the book say about today’s world, the place of the Church in today’s world and how does Pope Benedict explain his role in today’s Church?” Can anyone on this thread answer that question?
   
   We, Catholics, have to step up to the plate and answer the question As long as we are unable to answer the question, the media will win the day.
   
   I read the entire book and came away with a very positive feeling and very ready to answer the question about the condom and many other subjects in that book.
   
   Fraternally,
   
   Br. JR, OSF

1. 
   I do see your point here but I think there is always room to comment on the subjects of obedience and disobedience whether or not we have read the book. When Catholics come out condemning statements of the Pope (and in one case even a seminarian) that is disobedience. It is uncalled for unless the Pope is heretical or lost his capacity and I do not see either one of these being the case as I am sure Rome would be in an even greater uproar.