It's not just about male prostitutes

This is the worst and most confused example of sleazoid journalism I've seen in a long time. The world has taken positive note of Benedict's newfound openness to this discussion, and all this "author" can do -- without reading the book in question -- is snarl and growl because the out-of-context soundbite that caught public attention is not to her liking. She then curiously suggests that the pope should have mentioned priests using condoms to rape nuns so they wouldn't get AIDS or have to have abortions.

Simplistic pseudo-journalism not withstanding, no one has said this was "just about males prostitutes." The author would have known that if she had read the book. Or if she wanted to do something more than grab a quick byline and throw red meat to the pope-bashers of the world.

right? Let´s all just read Friar Boff this Lent instead . . .
Theological rocket scientist with plain talk.

For a theological quantum scientists, read the Reverend Father Ignacio Ellacuria SJ and his companion martyr, the Reverend Father Ignacio Martin-Baro SJ

santos subito

These things will take several generations to fix. Just like Vatican II is going to be fixed with the Roman Missal. I give this process 60 years, so don't hold your breath.

I don't know what all the fuss about changing the rules is all about. Surely it is well known that "the Church, in its wisdom, has always taught that diseased male prostitutes may, under certain circumstances, use condoms."

(If the Vatican chooses to use that phrase, I hope I get credit in a footnote. I can also whip up some nifty phrases about heliocentrism, if needed.)

Nicholas Clifford

Your sarcasm does not help the issue nor do you. Read the book first then make a comment.

I am no great fan of B16, but I think you are not giving him enough credit here. I think he really wants to open up this discussion, and this is his somewhat oblique way of doing it.
I agree it would be much better if he just said flat out, “You know, we might be too strict in our teaching about condoms for disease prevention. Let’s all talk about this some more.” But he’s never going to be that direct--he’s a European monarch, not an American pol. (God knows what would happen to him if he ever started being so upfront and truthful. RIP John Paul I.)

I think you're being too hard on the Pope. It sounds like he's trying to do the right, and smart thing, while pushing against a Vatican bureaucracy that still is uncertain that the earth revolves around the sun.

As the military used to say: "Forward movement, however slight, may be reported as progress."

Worry not, John Allen will put a positive spin on it all.

The Vatican should hire Zagano to run their PR. Everything she writes follows from the pope's statement. So why in hell did the PR idiots in Rome not spin this better? Getting the story out right so the headlines don't rile everyone so much would be a great gift.

Hi Phyllis, You've hit the nail on the head. This Pope needs to talk plain English.

"Pope Benedict XVI, a brilliant theologian..."

Will someone please write a column or at least enlighten me exactly how, specifically, this man has advanced theology or theological debate and thought in the late 20th and early 21st centuries? It is not just that I disagree with him most of the time, but I truly do not understand his contribution(s).

So I take it you didn't like his comments? Well, blow me over with a feather.

I wonder why the Vatican is trying to encourage new converts to join a church which can't speak in simple declarative sentences.

The more clueless B16 becomes, let's hope more and more people turn away and use the 21st century brains God gave them.

How someone like Professor Zagano can think that she is adding to a civilized dialogue that will be ultimately helpful to Catholics who are trying to live their faith, by her superior (and arrogant) tone is mystifying....."the days of Papal Bulls are over".....to quote the writer PUL-EEEZE!

It's getting increasingly difficult to remain loyal to this institution.
Can we please pray for leadership that has a clue?
Is this REALLY what Jesus had in mind when he built upon the rock?

Yes, the Pope's way of expressing himself was very poor, but the suggested heading
"“Pope aims to curb AIDS,” would be a poor choice. People who have promiscuous sex do not refrain from the use of condoms because they have not gotten permission from the Pope. And women with HIV-positive husbands are foolish to have sex with them with or without condoms, which are not guaranteed to protect them. Nothing the Pope says will have any effect whatsoever on the spread of AIDS.

This is a VERY negative and disappointing article that you should have had the good sense not to publish! When the Pope speaks freely and suggests there are opeings toward a more pastoral approach in the area of HIV and sexual and reporductive behavior we should all applaud him rather that pick at the gender of the invidual case cited! I for one think Benedict XVI is showing bravery and light whiles this article is negative and short sighted.

If the Vatican's PR guy had half a brain he'd be a half wit.

Benedict "brilliant"? Hardly.
Would a brillaint person have so much trouble trying to communicate a simple meaasage.
I am tired of trying to decipher what this pope "might" of meant, every time he opens his mouth.

If he wants to start a discussion of the morality of condom use, just say so.....

As for the moralty of using a condom in order to prevent the spread of a deadly disease, most people, brilliant or not, have come to the conclusion that it is indeed not only morally permissable but morally imperative, a long time ago. Don't need Benedict's moral guidance on that one.

How soon before there's a "Pope Approved" condom on the market?

Asfar as I can recall, there were 7 males prostitutes found loitering around the Vatican not too long ago. That must be what he's talking about. The Hierarachy doesn't want to get AIDS.

Thank you Phyllis! The sanity of this article is in stark contrast to the insanity of ongoing Vatican (dare I say papal) thinking. Most the world (who still cares) knows that we need a new approach to all things condom. But chipping away at current church teaching on sexuality in isolated bits and pieces just makes the whole mess crazier. Gay men are not supposed to be having sex whether or not they have HIV--according to church teaching. If the pope recognizes (finally) that some gay men have sex with male prostitutes, is it such a stretch to acknowledge that gay men also have sex with their gay partners--and that might even be more loving, more responsible than sex with a prostitute? Lesbian women have sex too. And heterosexual people have sex, and might need to use a condom. Oops--this could not only effect HIV prevention, but conception prevention. Here is a simple proposal: Declare a Vatican moratorium on any more proclamations on sex or condoms or HIV/AIDS until the Catholic Church has brought its teaching on all of these subjects into the 21st century--or at least opened up the discussion beyond Vatican walls. Ask women what their church ought to teach on the subject. Ask married people, single people, parents, gay and lesbian people. Ask those who've been abused. Ask the young and the old. And ask church leaders, even the pope, what he thinks. But take the task of charting a new direction away from the "Keystone Cops." Enough papal bull...people who teach about sex ought to believe in its goodness.

While I totally agree, I think this topic could have been handled with less sarcasm. I would like to see NCR uphold it's professional standards and this article falls short.

Right on sista!!!!!! I laughed hard when I heard what B16 said. They will never get it. One day they'll be talking to themselves in a mirror b/c there won't be any Catholics left.

Are we tired yet of the institution's complete lack of connection to what life on the "outside" is like? Wasn't the "first step of taking responsibility" made in the 60's during the wait for Humanae Vitae? By the time it finally came out, we and many like us, had already figured out that we were responsible for ourselves, our relationships, our children, and our decisions. What the pope thinks about condoms is irrelevant.

thank you. My first thought when I read this was horror that he could really mean that condoms can be used to protect men from AIDS but not to protect women??? This church just gets crazier and crazier. Then I realized that of course if its males having sex together the condom isn't being used for contraception. This is sick.

Sorry, it's not a "homosexual scandal involving Catholic priests." It's a child molesting cleric sex abuse and cover up scandal.

David Clohessy, Director, SNAP, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, (7234 Arsenal Street, St. Louis MO 63143), 314 566 9790 cell (SNAPclohessy@aol.com)

Phyllis, beautifully put. Just what I was thinking. I do wish B16 would get off condoms back to 4th century Greek-speaking Rome where he is more at home.

With all the ball-a-hoo going on about Pope Benedict and condoms, here is a very well thought out article about it from the Los Angeles Times. And it is written, no not by a conservative Catholic, but a Jew:

This pope plays it right.
What Pope Benedict XVI said is that in certain circumstances, using a condom would be less bad than not using one.
Jonah Goldberg

November 23, 2010

In the spring of 2005, Pope John Paul II died. My father, who passed away that summer, watched the funeral and the coronation of the current pope, Benedict XVI, from his hospital bed. My dad, a Jew, loved the spectacle of it all (the Vatican, he said, was the last institution that "really knows how to dress").

From what he could tell, he liked this new pope too. "We need more rocks in the river," my dad explained. He was saying that change comes so fast, in such a relentless torrent, that we need people and things that stand up to it and offer respite from the current.

I loved the literary quality of the expression "more rocks in the river," even though the imagery doesn't quite convey what my dad really believed. Dad was a conservative, properly understood. By that I mean he didn't think conservatism was merely an act of passive and futile defiance of what Shakespeare called "devouring time." Unlike human institutions, the rocks do not fight the devouring river of time. My dad believed that conservatism was an affirmative act, a choice of prudence and will. In the cacophonous din of perpetual change, the conservative selects the notes worth savoring and repeats them for others to hear and, hopefully, appreciate.

Over the weekend, the media (mis)reported that Benedict had renounced the Roman Catholic Church's longstanding "policy" against condom use. I put "policy" in quotes because the media have a tendency to portray all church positions as if they were like rules for trash pickup; easily changed or abandoned upon papal or bureaucratic whim. That's not how it works.

What Benedict said in a book-length interview is that in certain circumstances, using a condom would be less bad than not using one. To use Benedict's example, a male prostitute with HIV would be acting more responsibly, more morally, if he wore a condom while plying his trade than if he didn't.

The pontiff understands that not all harms are equal. Assault is wrong, for instance, but assault with a deadly weapon is more wrong than assault with a non-deadly one. Recognizing and limiting the harm you do can be the "first step in the direction of a moralization, a first act of responsibility in developing anew an awareness of the fact that not everything is permissible."

Now, I'm not on the same page as the Vatican on all matters of sexuality, never mind theology. But I respect it. And, given the core assumptions of Catholic moral thought, I think Benedict's reasoning is perfectly sound.

But, more relevant, I appreciate the role the church plays in savoring the right notes.

It's a common trope among church critics to glibly suggest that the Vatican has the blood of millions on its hands because it doesn't back condom distribution, particularly in Africa. That is as absurd as it is unprovable. The church's opposition to corruption, ethnic violence and murder are just as pronounced and resolute, and yet such maladies persist in Africa as well. Are we to believe that African male prostitutes — no doubt devout Catholics all — were simply following church doctrine when they declined to use condoms?

Meanwhile, the church does perhaps more than any other institution to aid the sick and feed the hungry in Africa, something you certainly can't say about many of the critics in the Fourth Estate peanut gallery.

As for the church's preferred approach — abstinence until marriage — it may be impractical in most parts of the world, as the critics claim. But it would undeniably save more lives than condom use if put into practice. What seems to offend many isn't the efficacy of the solution but the suggestion that such values have any place in the modern world.

The church's position is that the truest notes are those that not only celebrate life and love but cut through the whitewater racket of devouring time. As those notes become harder to hear, the answer isn't to stop playing them but to turn up the volume.

Perhaps it's the approach of yet another dad-less Thanksgiving — a holiday during which we give thanks for whatever parts of our lives that are set to the music of those true notes — that has set my mind in this direction. But that shouldn't surprise, for he was always the rock in my river.

jgoldberg@latimescolumnists.com

I think that Fr. James Martin, S.J. made some excellent comments on this topic in America Magazine,   reprinted in Huffington Post here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-james-martin-sj/understanding-the-pope...

As a matter of plain common sense regarding a serious medical issue and the epidemic spread of disease,   I’m willing to give Benedict the benefit of the doubt on this one…   even if his wording was a somewhat clumsy offering (that’s not anything new).     As Fr. Martin observed,   this latest papal discussion is definitely ‘change’ that finally moves the conversation forward…   once you get past the awkward soundbite and linguistic translation problems.     The previous pig-headed legalistic posture regarding HIV/AIDS and condoms was self-defeating and only made bad matters worse in human reality.
.
There is such a thing as being so durn “spiritual” and ‘above it all’ as to be no practical earthly good to anyone…   and more than one prelate has fallen into that ditch.     What good is theology that doesn’t reach humanity where it is?     The Lord of the Church became man and got in the trenches of the real world to teach,   help and heal — He knows our human frailty…   or as we are told on Ash Wednesdays,   we are “dust”.
.
Awkward or not,   I'm glad the discussion is moving in a productive direction for a change.
.

TRAIN WRECK, PHYLLIS? You have a cute way with words, Phyllis. I'm sure you always have a good thesaurus at your side. Pu-leeze! Your entire article is the huffing and puffing of a young excited journalist, just panting to prove her thesis to her peers: "Pope Benedict XVI, a brilliant theologian, is becoming a public relations train wreck." Stop playing to the grandstands and write a more serious article. You make a big to-do about "male prostitute." With an Italian surname like yours, you might like to know that in the Italian and Spanish versions (among others)the word is not "male prostitute" but "prostituta", which means a woman prostitute. Now, does that make you feel better? You had to pile on, didn't you, Phyllis?

God Bless Pope Benedict XVI and the Catholic Church.

This is a clear article.
Does the Pope have anyone read to him what would be helpful to him, like this article?
I can't figure out what century he comes from.Not mine.

Phyliis, I could not have said it better myself. Very good analysis. Most of the male church does not (still) get it P. Marks

Evidently, the Pope, in company with the rest of the Vatican, is utterly unable to imagine anything from a woman's perspective. Male prostitutes presumably infect their gay male clients--and there is no possibility of the condoms being used as a contraceptive (which seems to be the big issue). Women as the victims of male misbehavior--from promiscuity to rape--or women facing medical dangers related to pregnancy are completely off their radar. The church will not have even a minimally convincing stance on sexual morality until women are fully involved in the discussion and decision making.

Yes,it is time for words from the Pope that is understandable and acceptable in sound bites of all languages. To speak in allegories just does not compute in 2011 making the church less revelant.

Phyllis, take a deep breath, and read what the pope actually said before you issue knee-jerk pejoratives without having all of the facts.
If you actually read the book, "Light of the World", I imagine that you would find it to be the antithesis of a "PR train wreck" and that it will actually help people who are "on the way" to finding Christ. I have read it in full and it is great and welcome blessing.

This vicious hate filled rant against the Pope only serves to ridicule the Pope and contribute to the media fueled confusion. Have you liberals nothing to contribute to the conversation but hate, ridicule and confusion?

If anything, the columnist was easy on the Pope and Vatican. In a PR sense, they are certainly obtuse. The larger problem is a sense of humanity that has been attenuated by and subsumed to the drive for a particular kind of rigid orthodoxy. Benedict is almost always called a "brilliant theologian," but I think that's false. If you were to say that theology is a pure abstraction with no connection either to the mind of God or the realities of his creation, then perhaps he is a brilliant theologian. But if theology has anything to do with the mind and will of God and God's hopes and expectations for his creation, then Benedict the theologian is little more than an idiot savant.

You know, I really mean this. As one who was physically and sexually abused by nuns in grammar school and high school and was the object of a priest's lust in college (nothing really happened there...I was not THAT drunk!)I must tell you, even I am embarrased by this latest attempt by the Vatican to once more shoot itself in the mouth in the most public of ways.

What in the HELL are these guys using for a public relations paradigm?

You know, I must admit, the male prostitute problem throughout the globe must loom huge in the discussions between moral theologians at the various seminaries at the Vatican. And I am quite sure that many bishops and cardinals could speak to this issue personally with some authority. But for the love of all that is holy, will someone in the Vatican press corp PLEASE remove Pope Ratzinger's head from his more southern regions? This guy must REALLY be a lot of fun at cocktail parties!

What planet is this guy living upon? Male prostitutes are the main reason that Catholics might consider using condoms as a sort of "lesser evil" than spreading AIDS without wearing a rain coat? I would bet you that every Catholic priest frequenting every gay bar in Manhattan is scratching his head at this one.

How about the massive death rate by AIDS in the Third World by virtually every sexual encounter known to man? How about just plain old sexuality inside a Catholic marriage in a country racked by AIDS, poverty, despair, war and hopelessness. That would more or less be all of Africa and big parts of Asia and South America.

For the sake of saving all of us future embarrassment, the Vatican Press Corps needs to do a better job of bringing Pope Ratzinger's world view into at least the early part of the twentieth century. Most of us would settle even for that. This guy is downright humiliating to read or to try and follow.

Sheesh!

Thank you Phyllis. Finally somebody named at least a few of the deeper issues here.

"But who hires male prostitutes?" I am sure the answer to this that most think of is gay males hire male prostitues. Well, how about straight females? It is not just males who hire prostitutes, either male or female.

Gosh, this author is in Dr. Kennedy's sarcastic league. I tire of it so easily. And you're well-educated scholars???

I understand that the notion of male prostitutes is, shall I say, a but obtuse. However, it is a start. One door has opened. I pray for more understanding about this situation as time passes.

You're right, Ms. Zagano. Call a spade a spade...if it's dirty, then call it a DIRTY spade.

I think it was brilliant of the pope to use an example where it was clear he wasn't condoning the activity in question. Since most Christians see nothing wrong with using a condom in marriage, if he had used that example then everyone would have concluded he has joined in their collective wisdom. Instead, he used prostitution and homosexual sex to make it clear he was not expressing approval. He was isolating the act of making an immoral activity less dangerous. Brilliant

Janet Smith explains: An analogy: 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.

"Now the Catholic idea seems to be: don’t get AIDS when you hire a male prostitute. But who hires male prostitutes? Recall, please, there’s been a bit of a homosexual scandal involving Catholic priests over the past few years."

Did I just read a NCReporter columnist admit that the Church's abuse problem is essentially homosexual in nature?

I think there are still papal bulls around.... there is certainly a lot of BS coming out of the Vatican...

When considering the Vatican's statements on sexuality, I think it is more profitable to de-emphasise ad hominem attacks on the pope and concentrate on publicising the overall state of governance of the Catholic Church and its impact on the Church's position on regulation of sexuality.
Pope John XXIII initiated a review of the Church's policy on contraception, and a group of largely conservative Catholics was invited by Pope Paul VI to form a Pontifical Commission. Its deliberations and final report have been documented by Robert Blair Kayser in "The Encyclical that Never Was: The Story of the Pontifical Commission on Population, Family and Birth"(Revised Edition 1987, London: Sheed and Ward). Its Report endorsed the use of multiple means of contraception, commenting "The means to be chosen, where several are possible, is that which carries with it the least possible negative element". The Report was undermined by members of the Curia and other conservative elements, and Pope Paul VI issued "Humanae Vitae" instead.
This suppression of development of doctrine by the political manoeuvering of an entrenched, conservative governing elite in the Vatican, and Pope Paul VI's rejection of the findings of his chosen advisors drawn more widely from the Church community should be the foundation of criticism of this aspect of the Church's position on sexual morality. Pope Benedict XVI's statement seemed to me to be a retreat from one of the more immoral extrapolations of Humanae Vitae that have done so much to discredit and damage our beloved Church.