The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionPope talks condoms, sex abuse, resignation ... and movie nights
by John L Allen Jr on Nov. 21, 2010
By JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
Pope Benedict XVI is famously his own best spin doctor. In the old days, the Vatican would dispatch senior officials to try to calm the waters after the pope said or did something controversial; more recently it’s worked the other way, with Benedict himself getting the Vatican back “on message” after one of his aides, or somebody else in officialdom, has put his foot in his mouth.
Benedict’s chops as a teacher and communicator are once again in evidence this week, with release of the new book Light of the World: The Pope, the Church, and the Signs of the Times, an interview with German journalist Peter Seewald (published in English by Ignatius Press). Excerpts from the book were published yesterday in L’Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper.
Prior to his election to the papacy, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sat down for two such extended interviews with Seewald. This summer, he gave Seewald an hour a day over the course of a week, and the results of those sessions run to some 180 pages covering virtually every major episode and controversy from the first five years of Benedict’s papacy.
So far, it’s the pope’s surprisingly nuanced comments on condoms which have excited international interest.
In chapter eleven of the book, Benedict tells Seewald that the anti-birth control teaching of Pope Paul VI in the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae remains an important witness against the “banalization of sexuality.”
Nonetheless, Benedict says that in carefully circumscribed cases – where the intent is to prevent the transmission of disease, not to prevent pregnancy – the use of a condom “can be a first step in the direction of 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.”
The pontiff offers the example of a male prostitute, though the same line of reasoning could arguably be applied in cases of heterosexual couples where one partner is HIV-positive and the other isn’t.
That question has long been a subject of Catholic debate, even among cardinals. In 2006, the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Health Care Pastoral examined the question of condoms for married couples where one is HIV-positive and tentatively drew a positive conclusion, but no formal statement was issued – in part because of PR concern in the Vatican that such a limited concession would be heard by the world as blanket approval of condoms.
In a Nov. 21 statement, Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesperson, said that the pope’s comments did not come out of the blue.
“Numerous moral theologians and authoritative ecclesiastical personalities have sustained, and still sustain, similar positions,” Lombardi said. “Nevertheless, it’s true that they have not been heard until now with such clarity from the mouth of the pope, even if it’s in a colloquial rather than magisterial form.”
Condoms, however, are not the only news flash in the book.
Benedict speaks at length about the sex abuse crisis, saying that the efforts of the church today are focused on three fronts: compassion and outreach for victims; prevention of future abuse, including more careful screening of future priests; and punishing perpetrators when abuse does happen.
Benedict concedes that Rome may have mishandled the crisis in some ways. He concedes, for example, that perhaps he should have spoken more often and more forefully, even if he insists that “the essentials” have all been said. He also concedes that after the American crisis in 2002, perhaps the Vatican should have directed local bishops in other countries to examine their own records to see if similar problems existed there, rather than waiting a crisis to explode in the media and the courts.
Benedict also discusses the case of Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado, the late founder of the Legionaries of Christ. Maciel was a longtime Vatican favorite because of his doctrinal conservatism and penchant for generating vocations, but who has how become a symbol of the crisis as the Legionaries have acknowledged he was guilty of various forms of sexual misconduct.
Benedict refers to Maciel a “mysterious figure,” saying that he led an “adventurous, wasted, twisted life.” At another point, the pope refers to Maciel as a “false prophet.”
At the same time, Benedict says that the order Maciel founded is “by and large, sound.”
Despite expressing deep shock at the “wretchedness” and “sinfulness” of the church revealed by the crisis, Benedict says he’s never thought about resigning because of it.
“When the danger is great, one must not run away,” Benedict says. “For that reason, now is certainly not the time to resign … One must not run away and say that someone else should do it.”
Benedict did clearly leave open the door, however, to a resignation for other reasons – especially declining health.
“If a pope realizes that he is no longer physically, psychologically or spiritually capable of handling the duties of his office,” Benedict says, “then he has a right, and, under some circumstances, also an obligation to resign.”
Canon 332 of the church’s Code of Canon Law allows for a papal resignation, stating that it must be a free choice and does not have to be accepted by anyone. Nonetheless, only a handful of popes have ever resigned, with the last case coming in the 15th century.
In chapter ten, Benedict strongly defends his controversial predecessor Pope Pius XII, the wartime pontiff whose record on the Holocaust has long been a flash point in Catholic/Jewish relations. Benedict insists that Pius XII did not speak out more directly against the Nazis “because he knew what consequences would follow from an open protest.”
Behind the scenes, Benedict argues, Pius XII “was one of the great righteous men … and saved more Jews than anyone else.”
All that may suggest that Benedict XVI plans to move ahead with the beatification and canonization of Pius XII, despite protests in some Jewish and Catholic circles.
Asked about the possibility of a new ecumenical council, a “Vatican III” after the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), Benedict XVI says that while there will undoubtedly be another council sometime in the future, “at the moment I do not see the prerequisites for it.” Instead, he says, the synods of bishops are the right instrument at the moment through which bishops can participate in governing the universal church.
Two other themes running through the book are of interest in terms of revealing the pope’s attitudes.
One is clear frustration with some Catholic theologians, whom Benedict sees as pre-determined to read whatever he says or does in a negative light. In the context of the 2009 controversy over lifting the excommunication a Holocaust-denying bishop, for example, Benedict says that “an incredible amount of nonsense was circulated, even by trained theologians.” With regard to complaints about his 2007 decision to authorize wider celebration of the old Latin Mass, the pope says that “the polemical arguments with which a whole series of theologians assailed me are ill-considered.”
Benedict insists that the decision to lift the excommunications of four traditionalist bishops was entirely based on canonical logic, comparable to the reintegration of Catholic bishops in China ordained without the consent of the pope. Once such a bishop formally recognizes papal authority, Benedict says, the lifting of excommunication is basically automatic. In the case of the traditionalists, therefore, Benedict insists it had nothing to do with “rolling back the clock” on Catholic/Jewish relations or the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).
That said, Benedict also concedes that “our public relations work was a failure,” in that the logic for the decision was not adequately explained.
A second theme running through the book is a sort of exasperation from the pope about how his words or gestures are often over-interpreted, with their significance stretched well beyond his actual intent.
For example, in December 2005 Benedict XVI once sported the camauro, a thick woolen cap last worn by Pope John XXIII. Several commentators touted it as an example of Benedict’s traditionalism, but in the Seewald interview the pope says the reality was far more prosaic: It was a cold day, Benedict has a sensitive head, the camauro was lying around, and he simply put it on.
Benedict says he’s never done so since, “in order to forestall over-interpretation.”
Benedict XVI is 83 years old, and although there’s certainly no indication of an imminent health crisis, he nevertheless uses some language that might stoke a bit of pre-conclave speculation.
The pope tells Seewald, “I notice that my forces are diminishing.”
It should be said, however, that the line comes amid discussion of Benedict’s basic good health and prodigious work ethic. (The pontiff suggests that his durability is more a result of inbred constitution than deliberate effort; he admits he never uses the exercise bike that a papal physician set up for him, saying, “I don’t need it at the moment.”)
Looking back to his election to the papacy five years ago, Benedict repeats a point he made at the time: he never wanted the job. He was “so sure,” he says, “that this office was not my calling.” He once again compares being elected pope to capital punishment, saying that during the conclave he sensed the “guillotine” falling upon him.
Benedict said it is the “great responsibility” of a pope to ensure that the faith remains “inviolate,” and that he must be willing to brook pushback from the “powerful constellations” of the world” in doing so. At the same time, he stresses that a pope should seek “consensus and understanding,” insisting that “Christianity gives joy and breadth”, and that “someone who is always only in opposition could probably not endure life at all.”
Finally, Benedict offers some glimpses into his private life. For example, the pope says that during the evenings he sometimes relaxes with his “papal family,” meaning his two personal secretaries (German Monsignor Georg Gänswein and Maltese Monsignor Alfred Xuereb) and the four consecrated women from the Memores Domini community, linked to the Communion and Liberation movement, who make up his private household.
As part of that picture, the legendarily bookish pontiff reveals that when the “family” gets together, they sometimes like to pop in a DVD. A particular favorite, he says, are the “Don Camillo” movies from the 1950s and 60s, based on a line of comics created by Italian writer Giovanni Guareschi. The central characters are a parish priest in post-War Italy, Don Camillo, and the Communist mayor of his town, Giuseppe Bottazzi, better known as “Peppone.” Camillo and Peppone argue intensely and they joust for influence over the people, but underneath it all they share a genuine affection for each other.
For those who prefer to celebrate Benedict’s cerebral nature, however, have no fear: The pope says that when he moved into the papal apartment he recreated his old office, including all his books, which he calls “my advisors.” Later, in talking about his prayer life, he says he often invokes the saints, and adds: “I am friends with Augustine, with Bonaventure, with Thomas Aquinas.” It’s the scholar-saints, in other words, with whom he obviously feels the closest bond.
Thank you. I look forward to
Thank you. I look forward to reading the book.
Look for it in the fiction
Look for it in the fiction section with other dark comedies. Condoms are ok for male prostitutes but not for married couples? So it's ok for homosexual acts, which the church condemns, but not ok to protect a woman. Silly me -women are expendable. It's ok for a pope to act out of fear to preserve his position or his life? I don't recall Jesus doing the wrong thing to preserve his life. Do I laugh or do I cry?
I took the male prostitute
I took the male prostitute example as an exterme example. Hyper frequent penetration of multiple partners is probebly the fastest way to spread AIDS.
I would think a fair extrapolation of the Pope's comments would extend to a female prostitute insisting her cutomers use them, or a married couple where one spouse is HIV positive.
"I would think..." Yes, but
"I would think..."
Yes, but Rome has not appreciated *thinking* Catholics for at least 30+ years, and it doesn't appear that B16 and his lackey bishops have any greater appreciation for *thinking* Catholics today, either.
I think you must read it like
I think you must read it like this:
Nobody would want his daughter to work as a prostitute. But if she insists doing so, one would nevertheless suggest her the use of condoms.
This is pure commonsense, but it justifies neither prostitution nor condoms.
The question really is: should the Church suggest second-best solutions?
Spin on Spin
Spin on Spin
Benedict was right about one
Benedict was right about one thing...... the papacy was not his calling.
He is proving that every day!
The camauro was just "lying around" ? Since Pope John used it! The good sisters who clean the Vatican apartments must do a better job than that.
Give me a break... one more example of this man being incapable of being candid. I am sure they had to search for that thing! Unless Benedict had it at the ready with his red expensive shoes, just in case,
The "Santa hat" looks fine on
The "Santa hat" looks fine on the pope. Much better than a white baseball cap saying "Numero Uno" on the front.
Amen! It looked great!
Amen! It looked great!
I agree about "candid" -- for
I agree about "candid" -- for an example of deceptive spin see Benedict's account of his job at the CDF in Salz der Erde.
Please, Benedict, pick up
Please, Benedict, pick up John Vianney, one of these days.... we need a pastoral leader, to get us out of this mess.
Or Monsenor Romero, with his
Or Monsenor Romero, with his speechwriter Father Ignacio Ellacuria.
Well done Holy Father. An
Well done Holy Father. An acceptable degree of transparency can do nothing but help intra-church relationships.
To see the human side of the Pope is very helpful. He is indeed a courageous human being.
It would appear that there is
It would appear that there is still a refusal to face the possibility that the church's own governance structure and governance culture might have something to do with the continual sexual abuse scandal. And, of course, Cardinal Schönborn was slapped down when he suggested that it was time to look at the Curia.
One wonders when we may may
One wonders when we may may ever again have a "Pastoral Pope" the likes of
John XXIIIrd or John Paul Ist. Give the theologians more leeway to
contemplate doctrinal,moral and ascetical theology. May God provide
our children and grandchildren with a pope who seeks to understand and sympatheize with all of humanity, whether they be sinners or saints, believers
or unbelievers, of all ages, both sexes,all cultures, religions, nationalities, and callings (ie. marriage, single state,celibate life, etc.)
At 82,like this pope, my days are numbered on the earth. While some of the
Scriptural passages seem to emphacize the "anger" and "wrath" of God toward
the weakness and faithlessness of His People,I am convinced that He is a loving God who knows all too well the struggles of human nature to "be what He wants us to be". I believe that foremost He is a loving and forgiving God,
and for this reason He sent His Son to share with us His human nature which images each of us,and underwent every imaginable suffering so as to spare us.
"I believe that foremost He
"I believe that foremost He is a loving and forgiving God."
Thank you for sharing. I'm 20 years younger than you, and, like you perhaps, I grew up with that ol' time Catholic doctrine that if I were to die in a state of mortal sin, God was gonna' send me straight to hell!
Thank God, I'm shaking this dysfunctional notion of our Creator. Hasn't been easy, but I'm coming to see the Lord's "sacrifice" as one of living among us sinful mortals and enduring all the crap we could put on him at the time. I think Jesus truly came to show us The Way that, if followed, can save us from ourselves! Even as the late JPII acknowledged, we make our own hells!
I find great comfort in the three parables of Luke 15, which portray a God who takes the initiative to find us when we are lost, even (as in the case of the prodigal son) when we do not repent. On the cross, Jesus forgave those who opposed him, just as he instructed his listeners to forgive without limit. To me, this is unconditional love, no strings attached.
No more tradionalist Catholic "hell, fire, and damnation" for me.
No more orthotoxicity. Downright poisonous to the gospel message!
I don't think it is
I don't think it is legitimate to suppose that the Pope's condom example can be stretched as far as a serodiscordant married couple. 1) Because the teaching of Humanae Vitae is concerned only with what is as a sin against marriage. The Magisterium has no current teaching on condoms in relationships which are not marital. Nor does it need to. 2) The serodiscordant marriage is such a premier example that the Pope would have used it if he had intended his remark to go that far.
His example of a male
His example of a male prostitute is pathetic and offensive. I doubt that the male prostitute cares about the morality of condoms. This says little to the struggling faithful that still look to Benedict for guidance. No wonder so many simply disregard him. Sad!
Charles: The Italian and
Charles: The Italian and Spanish versions have "prostituta" (feminine), that is to say, a woman prostitute, not a male prostitute. So, Charles, give the Pope a break for once.
actually an article in our
actually an article in our local Mexican newspaper today clarifies this very grammatical point in publishing an international article indicating he used the male form, which could be inclusive or exclusive.
what may we understand from this of the pontifical experience?
Interesting! Did the pope
Interesting! Did the pope mean male or female prostitutes? Still how does that help struggling young couples? I don't think it does. Prostitutes probably don't listen to sermons on sexual morality. So how is it relevant to the couple in the pew? I am still offended/
It seems to me fewer and
It seems to me fewer and fewer are disregarding him. Not so sad!
Upon what statistical
Upon what statistical research do you draw this, your hopeful conclusion, Benny?
To say a male prostitute does
To say a male prostitute does not care about the morality of condoms is rather pharisaical. If he care about his own health and that of his customers, he is being morally responsible; indeed more so than the bishops who organize condom-burning ceremonies or exclaim "we say no to condoms", beleiving that in so doing they are pleasing the Vatican.
where's the pod?
where's the pod?
"The pontiff offers the
"The pontiff offers the example of a male prostitute, though the same line of reasoning could arguably be applied in cases of heterosexual couples where one partner is HIV-positive and the other isn’t."
Actually, it is not along the same line of reasoning. A homosexual act is substantially different from a heterosexual act, given that one is pro-creative and one isn't. The reason the Church opposes condoms is that it prevents sex from being a life-creating act. The Church remains consistent on that issue.
Overall, I am very disappointed with this article. For a news agency that prizes compassion and understanding, National Catholic Reporter certainly is not consistent in it's approach to the more conservative members of the body of Christ. An ideal journalist is supposed to be fair and detached. I do not see this here.
Wendy: The Italian and
Wendy: The Italian and Spanish versions talk of "prostituta" (feminine), a female prostitute, not a male one. Give the Pope a break for once.
Then what is the point of
Then what is the point of even making the comment? The church opposes homosexual acts and pre-marital acts, so was there even the need to give 'permission' to male prostitutes? Also, does a male prostitute only 'service' other males?
Thanks, John, for this
Thanks, John, for this informative and folksy portrayal of Benedict XVI.
If the object of using a
If the object of using a condom is not to prevent conception, such use is neutral. Two males ahving sex clearly would not use a condom to prevent conception, so it would be obvious that use under such circumstance would be morally neutral. Use when having sex with one's wife is entirely different, unless the wife is defintely past child-bearing age.
And what if pregnancy would
And what if pregnancy would endanger the life of the wife? I'm thinking of moderate to severe mitral valve insufficiency, previous history of breast cancer, idiopathic pulmonary hypertension (the Phoenix abortion fiasco), any other kind of pulmonary hypertension, 3 or more previous c-sections (increased risk of placenta previa) just to name a few off the top of my head. These conditions can be just as fatal as HIV, but are not spread by infection but exascerbated by the pregnancy itself. Which brings up the point that failure of birth control, be it NFP, condoms, the pill or whatever is potentially fatal. So why not then a tubal ligation? Or is the couple to go without sexual relations until menopause? If the latter, what kind of heartless theology is that?
Doctor you are spot on. The
Doctor you are spot on. The men who make up these rules for women know nothing of marriage, the importance of a good sexual life to cement this loving relationship and of course the myriad number of problems associated with pregnancy. Perhaps if they really loved a wife, they would not want her to die, or leave her children motherless. They worry so about non-sentient life but are quite willing to let women die and just call it so sad but well, it's the will of God. Perhaps if they were married they would not be so obsessed with the sex lives of others.
Refreshing to read that the
Refreshing to read that the pope is more human then usual comes thru in the press.
MILLE GRAZIE, PAPA. As long
MILLE GRAZIE, PAPA. As long as I'm an HIV-positive male prostitute, the Pope says I can wear a condom.
And this is PROGRESS because....?
It is "progress" Craig B.
It is "progress" Craig B. McKee, B16 has himself proved beyond any shadow of a doubt his so-called "infallibility" is illusory.
This is a far better
This is a far better treatment. Fair as usual.
Mr. Allen, Thanks for the
Mr. Allen,
Thanks for the very welcome post.
About the three scholars -- yes, Augustine, Bonaventure and Aquinas were scholars. But I think it's safe to say that for Augustine and Bonaventure the heart was superior to the head, and it shows both in Benedict's kind heart and his reversal of Church teaching even as he claims the teaching has remained the same.
Mr. Allen, Thanks for the
Mr. Allen,
Thanks for the welcome post.
About Augustine, Bonaventure, and Aquinas -- yes, all three were scholars, but I think it's safe to say that for Augustine and Bonaventure heart trumps head, and when Benedict claims that his partial reversal of the Church's teaching about condom use is not a reversal at all, we can see the triumph of his heart over his reason. Aquinas is not really his man.
Thank you John Allen, for
Thank you John Allen, for this human portrait of our pope. In a time when we are dismayed by the actions and inactions of the Church hierarchy, a personal view of the pope is a welcome relief.
"Benedict speaks at length
"Benedict speaks at length about the sex abuse crisis..."
The cartoon says it all:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/101bev08-28-2008.htm
http://www.npr.org/2010/11/18/131425353/italian-priest-s-trial-shines-li...
It really doesn't matter what
It really doesn't matter what this chap, Ratzinger, says.
CONDOMS & THE MAFIA - In his
CONDOMS & THE MAFIA - In his Nov. 21 blog, John Allen speaks of the pope’s "surprisingly nuanced comments on condoms which have excited international interest."
I have no problem whatsoever with the Pope's very nuanced explanation of the use of condoms. It's actually brilliant, true to Catholic moral tradition and to the very nature of sex.
In effect, he is saying is that -- though the use of condoms for sex is inherently immoral -- the fact that an HIV-infected prostitute may use a condom out of concern for his or her sexual partner who is not infected shows that there is a spark of goodness in the prostitute, a spark that can be fanned into "a first assumption of responsibility," to quote the Pope. The prostitute doesn't want to hurt his or her sexual partner. Hence the condom. Isn't that something good?
Years ago I happened to watch David Suskind's famous night talk show, during which he interviewed a mafioso hit man who had killed many people for the Mob. He had a brown paper bag over his head with slits over his eyes. He said one of their rules was: You don't kill a man in front of his wife and children. I'd say that, ironically, there was a spark of goodness in that man. That doesn't mean one approves of the murder of the father/husband. It just means there was still an ounce of goodness that “can be a first step in the direction of moralization," to again quote the Pope. Murder is always wrong; sex with condoms is, too.
This is a great report and
This is a great report and thank you Mr. Allen. The pope is telling his interviewer, "this job is hell". Sounds like Warren G. Harding's response when once asked about the presidency. Harding too said he didn't want the presidency, but felt obligated to the Republican Party.
Benedict seems to be preparing us for his departure. He's laid the groundwork. Given his age, 83, maybe, if he's lucky and has a truly great constitution, he's got a productive life for another three to five years at the most. I hope he doesn't put the entire Church through the death vigil John Paul II did. When it was obvious it was long over due for him to step down. I come away assured Benedict XVI will not put us through that again.
I do sense he's very much wrapped in cotton batting and somewhat isolated. The pope said "he should have spoken more often and more forcefully". I think the problem isn't one of what was said or what he didn't say, as what did he DO about the sexual crisis. He's still letting his entire hierarchy pretty much off the hook. No surprise there.
Bishops and cardinals will be breathing a lot easier after this, but I'm not sure the families of the sexually abused and the victims themselves will be placated.
" . . . .after the American
" . . . .after the American crisis in 2002, perhaps the Vatican should have directed local bishops in other countries to examine their own records to see if similar problems existed there, rather than waiting a crisis to explode in the media and the courts."
Again the concern about media and the courts, what about the shattered lives of the victims of pedophelia? What about penalizing the bishops that knowingly permitted the abuse of children?
"perhaps the Vatican should
"perhaps the Vatican should have directed local bishops in other countries to examine their own records to see if similar problems existed there,"
Yeah, like the local ordinary did not already know? Penalize the enabling bishops? Look where it got Cardinal Law!
So Benedict is saying that
So Benedict is saying that allegiance to the pope is more important than being on the same page on theological points?
Wouldn't you know he'd think
Wouldn't you know he'd think of a male prostitute before a married woman whose husband is tomcatting around and may be HIV positive! Or--God forbid--a single woman whose significant other is involved with other women! Just goes to show you that the hierarchical clerical mindset is almost irremediably misogynistic--or at the very least, irremediably androcentric. I'm sure he wouldn't think of it that way, either, which also goes to show that there is very little hope for enlightenment on this and many other sex- and gender-related issues for the foreseeable future. Sad, sad, sad.
Judith: The Italian and
Judith: The Italian and Spanish versions talk of "prostituta" (feminine), a female prostitute, not a male one. Give the Pope a break for once. You are unfair when you say: "Wouldn't you know he'd think of a male prostitute before a married woman whose husband is tomcatting around and may be HIV positive!" Get your facts straight.
Apparently he used the
Apparently he used the masculine word Prostituierter rather than the more common feminine form Prostituierte.
Allen Erroneously
Allen Erroneously Stated:
"The pontiff offers the example of a male prostitute, though the same line of reasoning could arguably be applied in cases of heterosexual couples where one partner is HIV-positive and the other isn’t."
You've apparently missed the whole point! The Pope is not saying ANYTHING regarding *marital* relations. He's specifically speaking of NON-conjugal relations....
The infallible teaching of the Church regarding marital relations is that contraceptives can NOT be used to separate the unitive and procreative dimensions of the marital act.
Condom use OUTSIDE of the marriage act is a very different kettle of fish, however--all sex acts outside of marriage are already intrinsically evil....the acts are already sexually "inhuman" so to speak. They don't fully express God's plan for human nature. You can't extrapolate from non-marital to marital acts.
We got a "Theology of the
We got a "Theology of the body" out of a pastiche of a few remarks from the late pope. Is this interview of the current pope now to blossom into a "Theology of the condom"?
Thank you Mr Allen for this
Thank you Mr Allen for this softer and gentler image of Pope Benedict. Whether it is the press or our own personal judgement, this article presents a different face of Pope Benedict. We who live outside the walls of the Vatican would never imagine this quiet gentle man who honestly did want the papacy? Let we who so often rush to judge others, instead sit back and examine first ourselves! Perhaps some of us who have rushed to be so critical, will now go out and buy this book and understand the man who is our Pope!
It is astounding that the
It is astounding that the Pope would use the example of male prostitutes. In the past the Vatican's language for these people was sodomites and they were condemned to eternal hell-fire. So what's going on?--he doesn't mention heterosexual couples so is this some kind of preferential option for gays? And what's going on in his mind with this thinking about gay men practicing sodomy ( Vatican language). Of course they are important in the fight against AIDS.
But is homosexual sex on his mind? Is this in his imagination? What is as important is straight men infecting their innocent wives. What about them? Why ignore them? A strange man with a strange imagination
northcountry1: The Italian
northcountry1: The Italian and Spanish versions talk of "prostituta" (feminine), a female prostitute, not a male one. Give the Pope a break for once.
Would somebody please find
Would somebody please find the original German text and report on it. I'd do it myself but am not competent in that language.
Alex You might want to look
Alex
You might want to look at this:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/world/europe/23pope.html
And you might want to read the interview with Archbishop Dolan in the NYTimes today (11/23/2010, where he talks about the disaffection of U.S. Catholics. No wonder Catholics are leaving the church in droves, when even the theologian-in-chief sows such confusion. But thanks, anyway Alex, for your thoughts.
Thanks John, for a worderful
Thanks John, for a worderful and insightful look into this latest book by Benedict XVI
It is an excellent interview
It is an excellent interview and transparent responses from the Pope. But there are not some important questions without responses about clerical celibacy and "the pill" -maybe this have the same interpretation that in the "condon situation"... if it's true the evolution came to the Church.
Is it, in fact, true that the
Is it, in fact, true that the same reasoning could apply to fertile married couples when one is HIV positive?
Or is that only true when one or both spouses are infertile?
Since part of the line of reasoning regarding male prostitutes (whose clientele are almost uniformly male) is that they can't be regarded to be contracepting inasmuch as conception between two males is impossible, it seems that one could only use the same line of reasoning for a married couple when, again, conception was impossible.
If conception is possible, then one would have to use a slightly different line of reasoning, which might turn out to be either valid or invalid.
In this article, it says that
In this article, it says that Pope Benedict never thought of resigning, despite the eruption of the worldwide priest sex abuse scandal, which flourished under his watch as Cardinal Ratzinger, when he was the head of the Congregation of the Faith (CDF) for 24 years, and as Pope Benedict, for the past 5 years.
One wonders what kind of conscience Pope Benedict has, when he keeps putting the blame "out there" on the bishops and on the priests, instead of admitting his own personal guilt in these terrible crimes against innocent and vulnerable children, which cry out to heaven for justice!
In my reading, it seems that this Pope's decisions over the years have been the major reason for the mess that the Roman Catholic Church is in at present.
I understand that the Pope demanded secrecy, with the threat of excommunication, for anyone who would speak out about the cases of priest sex abuse. It would seem that the bishops were intimidated into silence for many years.
An expert in the field of human rights and of crimes against humanity recently called the sexual abuse of children by Roman Catholic priests "soul murder".
As a physician who has met many men and women who are still severely traumatized by the sexual abuse that they experienced from the hands of priests when they were children, I agree that many have experienced "soul murder" by clergy of the RCC.
Apparently, the Pope and hierarchy continue to be their own law and the world seems to accept that fact, eventhough the Vatican is not really a sovereign state and therefore, the Pope is not really immune from prosecution, from what I have learned.
I am a practicing Catholic and I respect much of what the RCC teaches. I believe that Pope Benedict is a good man.
However, I believe that he has made some very serious and life-altering decisions that have deeply damaged many innocent children, by not allowing civil authorities to investigate cases of priest sex abuse for many years, and by protecting the abusers to abuse others, instead of removing them from the priesthood.
I believe that Pope Benedict should think seriously of resigning soon, for the good of the Church. The Church needs a leader who has not been complicit in the priest sex abuse scandals. Pope Benedict has been complicit in these scandals. Even recently, the Pope reversed the resignations of 2 Irish bishops who were known to be complicit in the Irish abuse scandals. I pray that the Pope will decide to resign soon.
Sincerely yours, Dr. Rosemary Eileen McHugh, Illinois, USA
Dr. McHugh, the Vatican is a
Dr. McHugh, the Vatican is a sovereign city-state as well as world HQ of the Roman Catholic Church. So far as I know, it has papal nuncios (papal ambassadors) to most if not all countries including the U.S.
Don't you realize that the
Don't you realize that the scandals peaked 30 years ago, and it was exactly under the watch of Card. Ratzinger that the numbers went sharply down? The root of the problem was bad teaching in bad seminaries and by bad bishops. Pope Pius XII defined it 65 years ago as the loss of the sense of sin. The Church is huge and it takes time to change her course, but it has happened, although the sinners will always be around, you and me included.
Actually i am confused
Actually i am confused because this comment specially about Sex is complicated. i can tell you one think every one should prayer for the pop an catholic church.
RE: "So far, it’s the pope’s
RE: "So far, it’s the pope’s surprisingly nuanced comments on condoms which have excited international interest."
AND: “Numerous moral theologians and authoritative ecclesiastical personalities have sustained, and still sustain, similar positions,” Lombardi said. “Nevertheless, it’s true that they have not been heard until now with such clarity from the mouth of the pope...."
AND: ". . .Benedict says that in carefully circumscribed cases – where the intent is to prevent the transmission of disease, not to prevent pregnancy – the use of a condom “can be a first step in the direction of moralization."
It's all so academic to the hierarchy: the pope, the princes, and theologians. But their draconian pondering on the use of condoms is a sickening reminder of just how immoral RCC doctrine really is. ". . . the first step toward "moralizaiton"??? How many steps will it take to bring the hierarchy to the realization that "moralization" of the use of condoms means abandoning very foundations of RCC doctrine based on fear and terror. The condom issue is symptomatic of the absurdity of the pillars upon which it rests.
How long must practicing Catholics suffer a terrorist's threat of eternal damnation for the use of a condom to prevent pregnancy? I shall never foget a conversation with a Catholic friend of mine some 40 years ago. He told me over lunch that he and his wife were expecting their seventh child and that they could afford maybe three children, but now the unwelcome news of a seventh child. I asked why they didn't use condoms. Of the thousands of conversations I've had over the some 70 years of my memory, this one stands out above all others: He looked at me with horror on his face and fear in his eyes and said, "THAT WOULD BE A MORTAL SIN!!"
Does anyone care to try and quantify the feelings of fear and terror that billions of Catholics have felt over the past two millenia over just this threat alone? If you can, multiply it by how many other "Mortal Sins" there are!! And then try to convince me that the the RCC doctrine is not based on fear and terror.
Nearly five-hundred years ago, Michelanglo embedded deceptions in the "Last Judgment" fresco behind the altar in the Sistine Chapel, which, in effect denounces the RCC doctrine of fear and terror. His antipathy for the popes he served and the Church doctrine they foisted upon humanity is evident there as well as in the ceiling fresco and in some of his sculptured pieces of art.
My novel, THE MICHELANGELO DECEPTION (available on Amazon.com) deals at length with the "Last Judgment" deceptions which are real; the novel is a platform for bringing this revelation to light; a rabbi and a Sistine Chapel docent reveal the rampant "secrets" that Michelangelo painted into the ceiling fresco in their book SISTINE SECRETS; and a renowned Italian art historian and his mentor discuss the great artist's deception that he sculpted into the Moses statue on Julius II's tomb in a video titled: "Michelangelo Revealed" which can be viewed by "googling" the title.
Good try, Donald. You just
Good try, Donald. You just had to propagandize your so-called novel, "The Michelangelo Deception." You surely won't get me buying it!
There is no question that
There is no question that this Pope is more than fit for purpose. Ad Multos Annos!!
His Holiness is my favourite
His Holiness is my favourite man on earth.
At least you're not speaking
At least you're not speaking for God.
Beware of idolatry.
Beware of idolatry.
What happened to Ingid Stampa
What happened to Ingid Stampa his right hand lady who it was believed, was a back door entry to access to him as Pope, she was well and truly established on the scene long before his election.
What does strikes me, is that these "insights" detract from the trust he has must have in those reporting what he actually does say and the message he's trying to get across.
Careful L Newington, you may be gently persuaded that he's not such a bad chappie after all.
Post new comment