EXCERPT:
Confusion reigns since Pope Benedict’s XVI’s latest book-length interview earned him headlines in both the secular and church press, as well as an explosion of commentary in the blogosphere. This Pope, already celebrated for his PR gaffes, has now befuddled many observers with a comment which, in my opinion, breaks no new ground yet confirms an important opportunity for the church’s leadership.
Twenty years ago I was fired as editor of a Catholic diocesan newspaper for editorializing that the New England Bishops had oversimplified the moral issues – and stretched the truth – by not only opposing the use of condoms for AIDS prevention, but claiming they were ineffective as well. It seemed clear to me that, whatever one’s opposition to condoms as birth control, as disease prevention tools they were obviously a useful option. Now it looks like I was right but too early—premature pontification !
…
The issue here is that, while the Church will always have a dogmatic dimension (that is, a teaching aspect) it must always avoid dogmatism – a rigid unwillingness to listen to reason or apply common sense. The challenge is to maintain church policies that are both dogmatic and pastoral: that is, attuned to the real-life conditions of the people affected.
Benedict XVI has never been a pastor, but he has done parish work, and despite his conservative reputation, he has shown a gentle and pastorally sensitive side. He likes to offer opinions that are personal and non-definitive. He described his book on Jesus as “one man’s views” about which others might differ. And now he has given his latest interview to a German journalist who has published on Benedict before. In it, discussing condoms and AIDS, the pope has pretty much confirmed the French bishops’ view, that in some circumstances the use of condoms to protect others may reflect an impulse toward, rather than away from, moral responsibility.
I suspect the French bishops were not alone in taking this position. In this sense, Benedict’s openness is not new at all, but reflects an existing, even established view of Catholic bishops (especially in Europe and Africa) with whom Benedict has worked for more than 30 years.
So why all the headlines and commentaries?
Clearly this Pope is inclined, especially in his informal statements, to express surprisingly personal views that often come across more like a professor’s musings than a papal proclamation – and this style confuses many in the media.
In this new interview, for example, he opposes the use of birth control pills “so that I can jump into bed with a random acquaintance” – a turn of phrase Catholics hardly expect from their pope. Then he makes his concession on condoms by citing the hypothetical case of a “male prostitute”—an equally surprising papal image.
A key point here: this 83-year-old celibate male may be forgiven for assuming that a male prostitute will service only male clients (assuming, in other words, that women never pay for sex!). On that assumption, then, he is speaking of homosexual encounters: pregnancy is not a possibility, so the condom is clearly cannot serve a contraceptive function. It serves only to protect the partner from infection. In such a case, the church’s traditional opposition to artificial contraception never comes into play.
So despite all the confusion it caused, Benedict’s position is, in my opinion, a useful clarification. My own editorial 20 years ago objected to bishops demonizing condoms, as though they were an evil invention with no possible good use. To me, it was a no-brainer that condoms could prevent infection, and that such use might be a good thing.
By citing the case of homosexual encounters where conception is not an issue, the pope is acknowledging that Church teaching opposes contraception, not condoms themselves. Once this distinction is clear, one may imagine other similar cases: for example, when an infected husband might use condoms to protect his infertile wife.
In my view, then, the real gaffe was in condemning an object instead of its use. In Catholic tradition, any invention, product, or technology has generally been considered morally neutral, and then its various uses have been subjected to moral scrutiny according to Catholic moral teachings.
So, for example, powdered infant formula is neither good nor bad in and of itself – but promoting its use in third world regions where bad water supplies make formula dangerous can be condemned as a bad use of powdered formula.
The one exception to this general rule is nuclear weapons, for which the Church’s theologians and bishops have found no moral use under any condition. That’s why Vatican II’s sole condemnation was reserved for the use, threat, and even production of nuclear weapons. Nukes present that rare case where it appears that the THINGS themselves, rather than the use humans make of them, are morally objectionable.
To equate condoms with nukes – to make the two devices the only ones that have no moral use whatsoever – is patently ludicrous. The French bishops knew this all along, the pope has now confirmed their view, and this ex-editor keeps praying that US bishops will one day see the light.
No comments:
Post a Comment