I can understand non-Catholics misunderstanding the Holy Father’s statement, because they don’t understand and are not educated in Catholic moral theology and theological methodology. But when Catholics get upset about this particular statement, I makes me wonder if they missed class when methods in moral theology were being taught. Let’s look at what happened here.
The pope is giving an answer to an interview question. He is a first-class theologian, giving a very academic response to a question. Therefore, the response has to be read as if one were reading an academic book on moral theology, not heard as if one were listening to the Sunday sermon. It is commonly known that Pope Benedict does not speak in common language. He actually hates doing that. He likes the academic language. He leaves it up to Cardinal Bertoni to translate for the general population.
Knowing this about him, why are Catholics surprised when he says something that goes over the heads of so many people? This is a scholar, speaking as a scholar and he is not about to change that. He does not want to do so and I don’t believe that he can do so. It’s not in his personality. He’s a very shy man who feels very uncomfortable talking to the common man in common “Catholic language”, if there is such a thing. We have to learn to take this man as he is and accept him for the person he is.
His comment is an analysis of the moral development of the person who is using the condom to prevent infection. He points out that the desire to prevent passing an infection or becoming infected is a moral desire and may be the first step in the right direction. What is that direction? Integrated sexuality, to use his terms, a more human sexuality. What does he mean by a human sexuality? A sexual code of conduct that is consistent with what God intended for human beings. What is that? Chastity. Plain and simple.
I’m surprised at the number of Catholics who cannot do this analysis. I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed. I’m sitting here with the book on my lap, reading the statement. Even I can see that he’s talking about the moral development taking place in a person who is beginning to think responsibly. The key words in his answer are “a first step” Those words immediately lead you to realize that he’s not answering the question, but he’s moved on to reflecting on the “why” a person would use a condom. He concludes, that it’s the first step on the journey toward moral behavior. Any sign of responsibility and concern for one’s well-being and the well-being of another is a step in the right direction.
The only flaw in this situation, if one can call it a flaw, is that he does not answer the question as it was put to him, but he goes off into a reflection on moral development. This is the way he thinks. He’s a scholar and he has a tendency to look at things in layers and he usually goes for the deepest layer.
This frustrates journalists, because they don’t understand what he’s doing. So, they quote what he says as they understood him, even if they have misunderstood him. In other words, they don’t understand that he’s doing a moral analysis of a behavior and finding that there is something good in there, at a deeper level. He’s fascinated by that and hopeful that that tiny moral glow may grow into a truly moral human being.
As I said, I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed and I can see what he’s doing here. It’s nothing contrary to doctrine or new. What is new is that we have never had a pope who has a real difficulty speaking in plain language. That’s a human limitation, true, but not a moral flaw or a digression from traditional moral teaching. I know that if I were left in the same room with someone like St. Bonaventure, whom I really enjoy reading, I would go home asking myself, “What did he say?”
Bonaventure could not write or say anything in simple Italian. Everything he ever wrote had to be explained by the friars who followed him. Try reading his biography on St. Francis. It’s virtually incomprehensible. It’s not a biography. It’s a theological dissertation on the soul of St. Francis. That’s the same way that Pope Benedict thinks and speaks when he does not have a script written by his staff, which is the case when he has an audience or a public mass. Those are easier to understand, because someone else writes them and he then proofs them to make sure that they say what he wanted to say. An interview is him responding without the script. The answers are going to be in Ratzingerian Italian.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
If this is the way that His Holiness wants to present himself, his papacy, his view of the Church and of the fiath, he has a right to do so. Let’s allow the man the courtessy of expressing himself. Again, read the book, if you have not yet done so. I did not come away confused, surprised or scandalized. Everything that he said make sense when you take it in the larger context of everything that he’s ever written and said.