[Note: This is an adult topic. Also note that we have dispensed with our usual custom of inserting asterisks to the word 'condom' for easier reading in the text below]
Notice: Scroll down for updates
Some news accounts concerning Pope Benedict's remarks on condoms and reactions to those remarks have once again demonstrated poor reporting in much of the secular media and also have illustrated a "widespread lack of critical thinking skills" among various laity. The following highlights some facts, falsities & fallout regarding Pope Benedict's remarks on condoms which appear in a full length book interview with a German journalist.
Facts:
* The Church's prohibition against birth control remains
* Much secular reporting has been inaccurate
* Intimate relations outside of marriage are gravely sinful and put souls in peril
* The correct interpretation of the Pope's example appears to involve (already gravely sinful) homosexual relations between an HIV infected male prostitute and his 'client' (an act which 'cries out to heaven', is inherently closed to life, and is already condemned by the Church). Even so, the Pope did not "endorse" or "prescribe" the use of a condom, but rather praised the motivation of a grave sinner who was 'finally' starting to think about others, even while still harming himself and the other person. Furthermore, the Pope said specifically that use of condoms "of course" is NOT "a real or moral solution". That's a far cry from recommending condoms! Not only that, but the example used was not a faithful married couple, but rather an 'extreme' case of a male prostitute infected with HIV who was engaging in a gravely sinful act - already an act that imperils his soul. The Pope was NOT speaking about contraception per se since homosexual acts are inherently contraceptive. Condoms also do not change the evil nature of an illicit homosexual act, nor are the two situations (two homosexuals vs. a married couple) comparable in terms of contraception because a condom would be contraceptive in the case of a married couple and it would have no effect in terms of contraception in the case of homosexuals.
* The Pope's comments were "informal and non-magisterial" and represented his own personal opinion. They were not the result of long and methodological research, but rather remarks made to an interviewer, and perhaps not even well thought out remarks at that. The Pope cannot create doctrine 'on the fly'. In fact, the Pope cannot be a creator of new doctrine period. His duty is to faithfully pass on what has been received. Even an allowable change in practice (as opposed to a change in doctrine which is not allowed) wouldn't come thorough an interview!
* The Pope did not praise or encourage the use of a condom, but rather focused on the homosexual's intention to avoid harm to others as possibly being a positive 'first step' in the (still disordered) thinking of a grievous sinner. Again, the Pope did NOT praise or encourage the use of a condom and he said that use of a condom is NOT "a real or moral solution"
* The Pope did not "advise" male prostitutes to use a condom, but made reference to a case where the prostitute decided to use one on his own in an attempt to protect another person. The Pope was certainly not advising or encouraging the prostitute to engage in homosexual acts or to use a condom, but rather focusing on the prostitute's 'good intent' to try to protect the life of another person, hoping this might be a 'first step' in the prostitute's turning away from sin
* The Pope did not say that condoms stop the spread of STDs (he has said the opposite). Remember that persons infected with HIV are like 'deadly weapons' when it comes to intimate relations - condom or not. They should never engage in intimate acts which could spread the disease - condom or not. Obviously condoms don't solve the problem of AIDS since much of the world already has access to condoms, yet this has not stopped the spread of AIDS. In fact, condoms may encourage persons to engage in more risky behavior.
* The ONE & ONLY foolproof and licit method to avoid transmitting STDs is ABSTINENCE
Falsities:
* Fiction: Condom use makes for 'safe s*x'. Fact: Various reports indicate that the failure rate of condoms may range from 10%-70% over time. Use of condoms can actually cause the spread of STDs since they can give a false sense of security and lead to more intimate relations outside of marriage [more such acts - besides increasing the number of sins - means more spreading of disease (because condoms are really NOT safe)]
* Fiction: The Pope endorsed condom use. Fact: The Pope did not endorse condom use. Rather, he considered it positive that a grievous sinner attempted to avoid harm to another human being, even though his thinking was nevertheless still disordered, his actions were still sinful, and contraception is still illicit.
* Fiction: The Pope's comments were unequivocal and absolute. Fact: Various interpretations of his remarks have been presented and the wording of the comments themselves were not absolute but rather speculative (e.g. "may be", "perhaps", "some individuals", etc.). Church dogmas, on the other hand, are absolute.
* Fiction: The Pope said using condoms reduced the sinfulness of homosexual acts. Fact: The Pope did not say sinfulness was reduced, but rather praised an intention that may be a step towards turning from sin [e.g. if you decide to drive 150 mph instead of 180 mph in order to make driving 'safer' for others, you still act wrongly (150 mph is still sinful), but your intention to consider others' safety (not your action) may be a positive step moving you closer to responsible driving behavior]. Further, it is impossible for a good intention to change an intrinsically evil act into a positive act.
* Fiction: The Pope gave approval to contraception among married couples. Fact: The Pope reaffirmed the Church's teaching AGAINST contraception for married couples. For homosexuals, he did not speak, per se, about contraception, but rather about the intent of an infected homosexual who sought to avoid infecting another homosexual. And again, condoms are not "contraceptives" for homosexuals since homosexual acts are inherently contraceptive to begin with (not to mention sinful)
* Fiction: The Pope said use of condoms could be justified. Fact: The Pope said use of condoms is NOT a "real or moral solution". He pointed merely to an intention (intention - NOT action) that may be a "first step in a movement toward" proper behavior. Remember that actions can be wrong even though intentions may be good. For example, an uncharitable person who takes notice of hungry persons and begins to steal to feed them. The intention of feeding the hungry is good, but stealing is not (and is, in fact, bad). Nevertheless, an uncharitable person taking notice of the hungry is a good first step (not the action, but the intention). The person needs to be put on the correct path (not stealing in the case of hungry persons, abstinence in the case of homosexuals). Both persons would still need to repent and would still need to get on the right path. With the Pope's remarks, keep in mind that he never said use of a condom (the action) was justified or good (only that the intention may be good) [Excerpt - Pope Benedict: "There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, 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 it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality." Interviewer: "Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?" Pope Benedict: "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 in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality."]
Fallout:
* Many Catholics have been scandalized by the Pope's remarks
* There will be increased confusion among the laity & clergy (and among those outside the Church) concerning Church teachings
* Those presently not living up to the Church's teachings may feel the Pope's remarks justify their actions
* There is fear that people and clergy will 'push the boundaries' of this supposed 'new teaching'
* Dissenters and non-faithful Catholics may use the Pope's comments as an opportunity to further their cause
* Some (even, sadly, priests) will teach - wrongly - that use of condoms is "approved" by the Pope
* Some may erroneously begin to think their situation "demands" the use of a condom to prevent a "worse evil" (such a situation requires abstinence, not a condom)
* Some will be deceived into using a condom for some supposed "greater good" (e.g. a woman who tells her husband he must use a condom to prevent the abortion she would have if she got pregnant). Both actions are gravely sinful and must not be done.
* There have already been calls for the Pope to 'expand' his comments. Interested parties have already petitioned that the Pope "allow" condoms in various other circumstances (even though he never said he "allowed" them in the first place)
* There may be more use of condoms - probably resulting in more spreading of diseases (because of the high failure rate of condoms & the false sense of security when they are used)
* Some married couples who have found it difficult to live up to the Church's teachings may find in the Pope's comments an excuse to use contraception even though this remains grievously sinful. They may "hear what they want to hear" in the Pope's words and therefore not consider this action sinful since they may feel "justified" due to various excuses. [You can be sure than anyone who "really wants" to use a condom can find some reason to assert that it's "justified"! (even though this is NOT what the Pope said)]
* Some will be angry at the Church for "not changing her teachings sooner" (even though her teachings have not changed)
* Some will blame the Church for the spread of disease due to her "past" teachings against condoms (even though those teachings are still relevant and even though those who faithfully follow the Church's teachings concerning chastity & fidelity would almost never get STDs through intimate relations). This may, perhaps, result in costly legal actions against the Church
* Some will question the infallibility of the Church for doing an "about face" on this issue (even though her teachings have not changed). The Pope's remarks may also advance the sedevacantists' cause
* Some will continue to insist that the Pope "legitimized" condom use in some circumstance because he (1) failed to issue a clear condemnation concerning use of condoms and (2) because it can be easy to misinterpret the Pope's actual statements
* An increased number of Catholics may chose to discard various other Church teachings they don't like since they may feel they have an "important reason" (even though this is not what the Pope said)
* The Pope has been criticized for seemingly encouraging homosexual acts by failing to condemn them
* The Pope's words might inspire charities to (wrongly!) promote condom use. For example, a Caritas Internationalis representative reportedly said the organization would consider "whether there are implications for our work in these reported comments of Pope Benedict". Catholics will need to be even more vigilant about where their donations go. Who would want their hard earned donations supporting 'condoms for homosexual prostitutes'?
* The Pope's words might also inspire misinformed & dissenting Catholics to hand out condoms (e.g. on college campuses)
* It is more difficult to explain even to well-meaning Catholics that condoms are not acceptable since they can so easily take the Pope's remarks out of context
* More Catholics may sin grievously (even unknowingly) via contraception and efforts at abstinence may be harmed due to the Pope's remarks
* More Catholics in a state of mortal sin due to contraception may receive Holy Communion
* More Catholics may place their souls in peril due to contraception
* The Pope's remarks may harm the situation in the Philippines regarding the government's desire to distribute condoms
* The false/inaccurate/misleading reporting in the media may help foster grave danger to souls (e.g. consider the false & misleading headline: "Pope Says Condoms Are Fine")
Other Observations:
* The Pope was under no obligation to permit this interview and, in light of the (easily predictable) fallout, it seems it would have better served the Church if the interview had not been granted. Critics have already called his comments in this matter imprudent & irresponsible
* The Pope lost a good opportunity to condemn sinful actions among homosexuals and unequivocally affirm the Church's position regarding human sexuality and contraception. Teachings against contraception are probably the most widely disregarded teachings among the laity (to their eternal peril). Catholics would have been better served had the Pope emphasized and explained these teachings - and spoke about abstinence - rather than introduce confusion regarding the teachings. Further, some may see his failure to unequivocally oppose homosexual actions as justification for such actions (which should have been flatly condemned)
* The Pope's comments may send laity & clergy on a "slippery slope", defending all manner of contraception (and other evils) "for the greater good" - even though the Church condemns contraception and evil cannot be intentionally done even for a good reason
* It seems it would have better served the Church if the Pope addressed doctrinal matters more carefully and in the usual manner rather than in an interview with a journalist who wants to sell books
* The average Catholic may be unable to properly explain the Church's teachings against contraception when questioned by other Catholics or Protestants in light of the Pope's recent remarks
* Those who promote the use of contraceptives may be complicit in others' sins. The Pope's comments may increase the number of persons who become an accessory to sin
* Remember that it is impossible even for good intentions to change the nature of an intrinsically evil act. The act remains evil even despite good intentions
* It seems demonic that in the week we saw the elevation of Cardinal Burke and the (wonderful) upset at the USCCB, we would also be faced with this "mess". Thousands - maybe millions - of Catholics have been thinking and talking about gay s*x, condoms, male prostitutes, etc. and this talk will likely continue in general conversations, homilies (with children present), at family dinners (e.g. Thanksgiving), etc.
* Male prostitutes are already doing something forbidden by the Church. They surely do not consider it relevant what the Church has to say regarding condoms. The fact is: there should NOT be male (or female) prostitutes in the first place
* Those who like to make a "lesser of two evils" argument with regard to homosexuals & condoms should note that an evil is still an EVIL. We cannot be complicit in evil! And, in the case of married couples, contraception would be the very thing that made the act evil
* It cannot really be said that it "lessens sin" for an HIV infected male prostitute to use a condom. The homosexual act itself is gravely sinful (grave sin #1). The issue of the condom is irrelevant among homosexuals in terms of contraception because the act itself is inherently contraceptive. In terms of "protecting the other person", however, they are still taking an estimated 10%-70% risk with the other person's life that is entirely avoidable (grave sin #2). So they are still guilty of committing two grave sins - the homosexual act AND risking the life of the other person. The homosexual may (arguably) sin "a bit better" by possibly reducing the level of risk, but he nevertheless commits two grave sins and the condom does not change this. If anything, others may engage in the risky behavior with him even more frequently because they think it is "safe". And, as one observer notes, Jesus never instructed his followers how to "sin better", but rather he instructed his followers to avoid all sin. Remember that the infected homosexual prostitute with a condom essentially opts for a 10%-70% chance of infecting another person when he could have had chosen 0% by abstinence, so how can he be excused for recklessly endangering another's life when he could have easily avoided it? Would you give a mass murder (or attempted mass murderer) a pass because he put only 1 - 7 bullets in a (hypothetical) gun that held 10 bullets? The only way to be completely free of guilt would be to abstain from the dangerous act entirely (an act which is of itself gravely evil).
* Say a driving instructor praised reckless drivers of stolen cars for their intent to adjust their speeding down to 150 mph instead of 180 mph. The speedy driver at 150 mph is still risking lives, even though it is true that his cutting back to 150 mph may be an indication that he has taken a 'first step' in realizing that fast driving is unacceptable (e.g. that speedy driving may harm other persons). A crime is still committed at 150 mph and the driving instructor may not praise him for driving at 150 mph or approve of his driving at 150 mph - nor of his driving stolen cars - but he could still say that cutting back to improve chances of safety was a step towards "moral responsibility" - nevertheless it's still unacceptable to go 150 mph and it is still unacceptable to steal cars. Although fewer people may get killed, it's hardly "morally responsible" to go 150 mph!. It would have been better and easier for observers to understand his comments if the driving instructor would have just insisted on driving no faster than the proper speed limit at all times and not stealing cars. Remember that some persons may take his comments as a license to go 150 mph or steal cars if they hadn't already (especially if they previously wanted to do this) or use them to justify their actions if they already drive at 150 mph or steal cars. Certainly, the driving instructor's comments may be considered imprudent and may even lead to harm (e.g. among those who got the impression he was approving of driving at 150 mph). In the case of homosexuals, it is even worse, however, since we are dealing with eternal souls. These persons may never get to the hypothetical "next step", but could die at any time - even in the midst of engaging in gravely sinful behavior. It may be "nice" to speak of conversion in "steps", but there is no guarantee anyone will live long enough or "develop" enough to get to any future steps, much less to the steps that are actually good. Jesus did not speak of such steps, but rather speaks of being prepared at all times. The driving instructor should lay down the law clearly as his Boss (God) has done.
* It should be noted that there has been controversy concerning the timing of the article in the Vatican newspaper and also concerning the translation. Some apparently find the timing (during the consistory) to be "deliberate". Further, the text was taken out of the full context, causing consternation and additional difficulties. Even the "clarification" may have brought more confusion (and even error) into the mix
* Like so many other post-Vatican II comments, God seems completely left out of the picture, yet He is the one most offended by sin.
* Faithful Catholics should consider writing the Pope, asking for a strongly worded, unequivocal clarification of Church teachings
Update (11/23/10):
* Vatican spokesman Fr. Lombardi reportedly asked the Pope personally concerning "Whether a man or a woman or a transsexual does this, we're at the same point" ("The point is the first step toward responsibility, to avoid posing a grave risk to another person") for which the Pope reportedly responded in the affirmative. Note that the point is referenced as "the first step toward responsibility", not that the act itself is a responsible act, but that the intention may be heading in that direction (a "first step" towards responsibility, not actual responsibility). Again, this refers to the intention rather than to the act itself. Keep in mind that the Pope is considering the good intention of not harming another person, he is NOT praising the use of a condom itself [likewise, one can consider the good intention of the speedy driver who cut back to 150 mph from 180 mph to 'increase others' safety' without actually praising the speedy driver for going 150 mph (although a condemnation of his speedy driving at 150 mph is certainly in order!)]
* According to a CNS report, Archbishop Fisichella has indicated that the Pope's interview 'does not represent the formal exercise of the Pope's teaching authority' and that 'Catholics are not required to agree with Pope Benedict XVI's interview comments', although they owe the Pope respect
* A National Catholic Register interviewer has asked Cardinal Burke if the Pope is saying that condoms can be permitted in some cases. The Cardinal replies in the negative, stating that he "[doesn't] see any change in the Church’s teaching. What [the Pope's] commenting on - in fact, he makes the statement very clearly that the Church does not regard the use of condoms as a real or a moral solution - but what he’s talking about in the point he makes about the male prostitute is about a certain conversion process taking place in an individual’s life. He’s simply making the comment that a person who is given to prostitution, at least considers using a condom to prevent giving the disease to another person - even though the effectiveness of this is very questionable - this could be a sign of someone who is having a certain moral awakening. But in no way does it mean that prostitution is morally acceptable, nor does it mean that the use of condoms is morally acceptable."
* The journalist who interviewed the Pope indicated that "From the beginning of the book he warns us that 'the Pope can have erroneous personal opinions'; he certainly does have 'the power of final decision' in matters of faith but this 'does not mean that he can continuously produce infallibility'. It is perhaps in this statement that we must seek the original roots of this book of interviews"
* Not surprisingly, the secular media continues to misinterpret the Pope's remarks. For example, one report claimed the Pope's comments mean that "stopping AIDS is more important than stopping condom use". The Pope's comments, however, did not actually say that. Rather, his remarks referred to a sinner beginning to having an awareness that his sinful actions are harmful to others and his attempt to mitigate that harm [like the above example when the speedy driver cuts back his speed to 150 mph... it's still sinful to go 150 mph, but the intent to cut back his speed from 180 mph for others' benefit is a step in the right direction (not that going 150 mph is an okay thing to do, just that driver's intention is at least starting to head in the right direction)]. The Pope is not giving approval to condoms, nor is he indicating that condoms can stop AIDS. He is simply speaking about an improvement in the intentions of the (still misguided) sinner
* Also not surprisingly, various groups are overjoyed over the supposed new (but NOT really real) permission for heterosexual couples to use condoms (remember that true Church teachings say that intimate relations must occur ONLY in lawful marriage and that ALL such acts must be open to life... there is NO permission given for married couples to use contraception!). And, even if other cases may be "imagined" where use of a condom can be taken as a sign that a person "has taken a step towards responsible behavior", this still does not mean that the action itself is licit, only that it may show that the intention of the person may be starting to turn in a better direction [again, when a speedy driver cuts back his speed to 150 mph, he is still behaving sinfully by driving at 150 mph, but the intent to cut back his speed from 180 mph because he wants to "protect" others is a step in the right direction (not that going 150 mph is an okay thing to do, just that the driver's intention is at least starting to head in the right direction). However, if that driver cuts back his speed to 150 mph and adds another risk (e.g. using a cell phone while driving), he is - objectively speaking - increasing his sinful behavior even as his "intention" of cutting back risk to others has supposedly "improved". In either case, he still commits grievous sin by his reckless driving. Remember, though, that one cannot approve of speedy driving or of the use of a cell phone while driving at 150 mph, but it is still possible to acknowledge that the sinner's changed intention may be somewhat improved - even though his actions are still terribly wrong]
Update (11/24/10):
* Regarding the condom controversy, Archbishop Dolan - in a recent New York Times interview - emphasized that Catholic teaching is not subject to change. In response to his statement that "You get the impression that the Holy See or the Pope is like Congress and every once in a while says, 'Oh, let’s change this law,'" he said: "We can’t." [Related: Can dogmas change?]
* Zenit has reported that "There is under way in the Philippines an 'opportunistic misuse' of the statement about condoms made by Benedict XVI in his new book." The misused remarks are, unfortunately, being used to aid the Philippine government's efforts in promoting contraception
* According to EWTN, a 'top U.S. theologian' - who notes that the papal spokesman's remarks have 'added to the confusion' - says we "ought to let the Pope speak for himself." He said the 'troubling' comments by Fr. Lombardi "seem to misrepresent what the Pope is trying to argue in the book" and noted that the use of condoms by female prostitutes would be more likely to be motivated by concern for herself than by concern for the other person
* According to a New York Times article, the president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia - who is also a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life - (the same 'top U.S. theologian' referred to above) saw an advance copy of the book and told the publisher "Don’t publish this; it’s going to create such a mess"
"More souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason." (Bl. Jacinta of Fatima)
"But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, 'Intercourse even with one's legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.'" (Pope Pius XI, "Casti Connubii", 1930 A.D.)
"Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God." (St. Paul, 1 Cor 6:9-10)
[11/22, updated 11/23 & 11/24]
Posts
