Here is a beautiful little tribute to the Pope from one of his loyal (and recently named) bishops:
Benedict XVI:
Engaging the public in dialogue
by Mons. THOMAS WENSKI
Archbishop of Miami
Nov. 28, 2010
Peter Seewald's book-length interview, with Benedict XVI,
Light of the World, allows the reader to `eavesdrop' on an intimate and revealing conversation with the Vicar of Christ that reveals him to be the 'humble servant in the vineyard of the Lord' that he described himself as shortly after his election to the See of Peter.
The humility of Pope Ratzinger is clearly evident throughout the interview but so also is his keen mind and formidable intellect. A prolific writer, this one-time professor and long-time `enforcer' of Catholic orthodoxy as head of the Holy Office (now known as The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith) is also perhaps the Church's greatest living theologian.
The international media have already given
Benedict XVI: Light of the World much pre-publication attention because of what the Pope said about condoms and the possible acceptability of their use by a narrowly defined cohort, i.e. male prostitutes. Much of the overwrought reaction, I believe, was caused not so much by what was said by the Pope but on how it was reported in the secular media.
Did the media deliberately misunderstand Benedict's words?
Not necessarily. But
the sensationalized coverage points out the inherent difficulties experienced by the Church today in forging a ``grammar of dialogue'' with a world that speaks a different language. Popes speak in the languages of philosophy and theology; most modern reporters (and their audiences), untrained in these disciplines, speak more comfortably in the idioms of sociology and psychology.
[As a matter of fact, in LOTW, the Pope tackles this problem directly - I will append the excerpt below.]
That this Pope is anxious to engage this world in dialogue is evident by his recent establishment of a Congregation for the New Evangelization, as well as his agreeing again to be interviewed by Peter Seewald for this book.
If the world that has seemingly forgotten God or has dismissed him as `unimportant' is to rediscover a future of hope, a renewed `grammar of dialogue' based on reason is absolutely necessary. Thanks to Seward's interview, Benedict does engage the world -- and he does so engagingly.
Walking in the shoes of the fisherman has not changed the man who wears them. But, in the frank discussions of the different issues that he has had to face since becoming Pope five years ago, we find a man who fits those shoes very well indeed.
Here, we can listen to a Pope who remains in love with the Lord -- and, despite the flaws and sins of her many members, one who is deeply in love with the Church entrusted to his care.
Joseph Ratzinger, like his predecessor, John Paul II, experienced first-hand the tragedies of the 20th century caused by those who sought to build a world that was not only a world without God but a world against God.
John Paul II helped free those nations captive to the ideological materialism of Marxist-Leninism; Benedict XVI, in turn, is striving to free those captive to the practical materialism of the Western democracies.
All readers -- whether they do not count themselves among his flock as well as those who, like the Holy Father, call the Church `mother' -- can profit from engaging in this conversation with a man who continues to surprise and disarm his critics with the authenticity of his witness. As an intellectual and as a pastor, Benedict witnesses -- with great joy and unwavering hope -- that 'God does matter'.
*
Here is the excerpt on the 'new language needed' from LOTW:
Seewald asks the Pope specifically about the preaching of the Second Coming of Christ and notes that the Church has been unable to present this message clearly.
B16: Indeed, it was a concern of John Paul II to make clear that we are looking ahead to the coming of Christ. That consequently the One who has come is also, even more so, the One who is to come, and that, from this perspective, we should live out our faith toward the future.
Part of this is being really in a position to present the message of faith again from the perspective of the coming Christ. Often this One who is coming has been presented in formulas that, while true, are nevertheless at the same time outmoded. They no longer speak to our living situation and are often no longer comprehensible to us.
Or else this One who is coming is completely emptied and falsified, turned into a meaningless universal moral commonplace, so that nothing comes of it. We must therefore try in fact to express the substance as such — but to say it in a new way.
Jürgen Habermas has remarked that it is important that there be theologians who are able to translate the treasure that is preserved in their faith in such a way that in the secular world it is a word for this world.(sic) [I think the sense is 'to express the faith in words that the secular world understands.
His understanding of this may be somewhat different from ours, but he is right that the intrinsic translation process of the great words into the speech and thinking of our time is under way but has really not yet succeeded.
It can be successful only if people live Christianity in terms of the One who is coming. Only then can they also declare it. The declaration, the intellectual translation, presupposes the existential translation.
In this respect the saints are the ones who live out their Christianity in the present and in the future, and the Christ who is coming can also be translated in terms of their existence, so that he can become present within the horizon of the secular world’s understanding. That is the great task we face.
I think the language of the Pope's homilies, messages and encyclicals - in short, of his Magisterium, - are a great headstart on adapting the language of the Church to the contemporary . Deus caritas est and Spe salvi, not to mention JESUS OF NAZARETH, would never have been the unprecedented best-sellers that they were if Benedict XVI had continued to use the opaque and specialized - almost archaic - vocabulary and rhetorical stereotypes of the Church.
And for the first time, there's a long commentary by someone authoritative on the overlooked option in all the public discussion - at least that played up in the media, lately and in the past: abstinence, as I have commented upon since this new controversy arose. Me and my strait-laced conservative mind, abstinence is the first thing I think of when the problem of HIV containment is brought up, just as natural birth control is what I think of in matters of contraception, and which the Holy Father brings up in a so-far unquoted paragraph from LOTW, which I included in my sampler above.
Pontiff's comments about condom use
are really a renewed call for chastity
What he said was that a partner with AIDS or HIV could show concern for "the other" by using the prophylactic,
and that would be a step in the right direction. But abstinence is still the favored choice.
by JOHN HAAS
Nov. 28, 2010
Mr. Haas is president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia.
It is difficult teaching moral truth in a day of instant communication and media manipulation. The publication of a series of interviews with Pope Benedict XVI as the book Li
ght of the World by Peter Seewald is a case in point.
In reading an advance copy of the book, one knew the mass media would immediately focus on one thing: the Pope's remarks on condom use and the struggle to prevent the spread of AIDS. Indeed, the first headline that I encountered after excerpts of the book were released was: "Pope OKs condoms."
Briefly, this is what the Pope said: Condoms are neither the effective way nor the moral way to stop the spread of AIDS (the Church "does not regard it as a real or moral solution"). He also said, "We cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms."
The Pope states that the AIDS epidemic has resulted largely from the irresponsible and selfish use of sexuality. Then he expresses hope for the conversion of a sinner by suggesting that the use of a condom might be an expression of his concern for the "other."
This might be seen as a first step toward loving and respecting the "other" so that he would eventually embrace a life of either fidelity or abstinence, the only approaches that have truly proved to be successful.
There has been debate for years over the moral legitimacy of the use of condoms by couples in which one member is HIV-positive or has AIDS. There are two fundamental moral problems that stoke this debate.
First, taking into account the high failure rate of condoms, would it be morally licit for a spouse to put his wife's health or life at risk for the sake of intercourse? It is difficult to see how this could be justified.
The marital act is to be love-giving and open to life. In the case of a spouse with AIDS, intercourse even with a condom could well be potentially death-dealing.
The second moral problem has to do with the contraceptive character of condoms. It is true that the use of a condom in a single case might diminish the risk of the transmission of the AIDS virus, but it could also have a contraceptive effect.
The Church's unwavering position on the immorality of contraception is well-known. But some theologians argue that the condom was not being used to contracept but rather to lower the risk of spreading AIDS. The contraceptive effect was foreseen but not intended.
The matter continues to be debated, but the more common opinion among moralists faithful to the magisterium is that the use of the condom would be wrong because it could endanger the life of the spouse and could be an act of contraception.
It is interesting that the Pope sidesteps this debate by the example he uses. He reflects on the decision of a male prostitute to use a condom. In such a case, there can be no question of the contraceptive effect of the condom. Consequently, his example does not relate to the debate over the use of condoms by discordant couples.
But, interestingly,
the Pope does not really reflect on the question of the effectiveness of condom use in reducing the transmission of AIDS. He rather wants to reflect on the moral state of the person who would use it with the hope that that person would begin to assume moral responsibility for his sexual activity.
There is no question that the Church considers acts of prostitution and homosexuality to be gravely immoral and disordered. However, the Church in her love of souls always looks for some indication that the sinner might "come to his senses."
The Pope says the use of a condom in a particular case might be "a first step in the direction of . . . a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed."
Obviously this first possible step in the direction of "moralization" cannot make an act of prostitution, homosexuality, or contraception good. But it indicates that the conscience might be alive and might eventually bring one to conversion and new life.
A careful reading of the text could not possibly lead one to conclude that the Pope has approved condom use. He says quite explicitly: "It is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection."
Indeed, it can aggravate it. Edward C. Green of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at Harvard University would seem to agree. He wrote in a recent book,
'Affirming Love, Avoiding AIDS', that
condom use "might actually contribute to higher levels of infection because of the phenomenon of risk compensation, whereby people take greater sexual risks because they feel safer than they really ought to because they are using condoms at least some of the time." [Which was the Pope's original argument when he made those controversial statements on the way to Cameroon last year.]
The interview with Pope Benedict indicates no change in Church teaching. It is a renewed call for chastity and abstinence as the most effective means of fighting the spread of AIDS.
I had hoped - against all precedent - that bishops would come out and speak as the Archbishop of New Orleans has now done about the condom issue. He speaks unclouded by the media confusion that has reigned about it since last week, while conscious of the pastoral discretion and discernment that bishops and priests may exercise in individual cases where their counsel is sought. I have always thought this a commonsense approach by the Church, which understands that on certain issues, one size does not fit all. I am surprised that few pastors articulate it as Archbishop Aymond does... And I would be remiss not to praise and thank the reporter for a very good job of unbiased and accurate reporting. What a pleasure, and how gratifying, to come across such exceptions to the prevailing MSM rule!
New Orleans archbishop says
Catholic church teaching
on condoms is unchanged
by Bruce Nolan
November 27, 2010
In New Orleans, Archbishop Gregory Aymond has been following the global dustup over what Pope Benedict XVI said — or is thought to have said, in German, Italian and English — about the Catholic church’s view on the use of condoms to protect people from AIDS and other diseases.
Whatever the confusion, Aymond is sure of this: Benedict cannot and has not reversed the Catholic church’s traditional teaching that condoms are immoral as a contraception technique.
Beyond that, Aymond said Benedict may be inviting the Church to step up its conversation on whether condoms might be appropriate as a health measure in a marriage in which one spouse is infected with a dangerous disease like AIDS.
“My read is that he’s inviting us as a faith community to do further prayer, theological reflection and study on that issue,” Aymond said.
The issue has special relevance in places like Africa, ravaged by AIDS, where Catholic relief workers confront the disease and counsel people on prevention. Their Church has been heavily criticized for taking a different view from other health organizations on the appropriateness of condoms.
The Catholic Church’s position is that AIDS prevention campaigns relying principally on condom distribution are insufficient — that because sex outside of marriage is not only immoral but unsafe, the best solution involves persuading people to limit themselves to monogamous sexual behavior.
Beyond that, the Catholic Church has long opposed use of condoms on moral grounds.
The confusion began last week when the Vatican's Italian-language newspaper translated from Benedict's German a discussion of condoms in the context of AIDS and Africa.
Benedict said that in an extreme case, in the case of an infected male prostitute, using a condom might be laudable as the first stirring of a moral responsibility, even within an immoral act, if the intent is to protect the partner from disease.
In Catholic philosophy, condoms thwart the design of sex by blunting its reproductive potential, and thus are always wrong when used to prevent conception.
But the church has no definitive teaching on the use of condoms within a marriage solely to prevent disease like AIDS — although the Rev. Jose Lavastida, a moral theologian and the rector of Notre Dame Seminary, said the prevailing logic of Catholic moral theology comes down heavily against it.
Whether Benedict, a renowned theologian himself, offered a provocative personal opinion on that narrow question, or whether his observations to a German journalist were muddled by Vatican mistranslations, further muddled by a Vatican clarification — and from the outset misinterpreted by some elements of the secular press, is still not entirely clear.
The confusion began last week when the Vatican’s Italian-language newspaper translated from Benedict’s German an excerpt of his conversation with journalist Peter Seewald, with whom Benedict had collaborated on Benedict’s new book, “Light of the World.”
Discussing condoms in the context of AIDS and Africa, Benedict told Seewald that in an extreme case, in the case of an infected male prostitute, using a condom might be laudable as the first stirring of a moral responsibility, even within an immoral act, if the intent is to protect the partner from disease.
Much of the worldwide secular press at first incorrectly reported that the Church had reversed its traditional opposition to condom use generally.
Aymond and other church spokesmen vigorously denied that.
Asked later whether the original German accurately limited Benedict’s observation strictly to homosexual sex, where contraception is not an issue, Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi’s clarification seemed to enlarge Benedict’s observation beyond the exotic example of male prostitution.
“I personally asked the Pope if there was a serious, important problem in the choice of the masculine over the feminine,” Lombardi said. “He told me no. The problem is this: It’s the first step of taking responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk of the life of another with whom you have a relationship.”
Some Catholic writers and commentators saw the reference to “relationship” as an indication that Benedict was talking about a married couple’s use of condoms to keep one partner with AIDS from infecting another.
If so, “this is something of a game-changer,” wrote the Rev. James Martin in the Jesuit magazine,
America. Other Catholic writers and commentators picked up the same thread.
That’s because that debate had been going on inside the Church for some time, driven largely by its anti-AIDS work. Some Catholic theologians have supported the limited use of condoms for disease prevention within marriage as morally permissible, if not the ideal.
But the Church as a whole has never come to a conclusion. And according to Lavastida, the weight of current theological opinion runs against condom use, even in those cases.
“If that question were to be answered today, what would be looked at is the integrity of the marital act. And the marital act with the use of condoms (violates) the integrity of what the act should be,” he said.
For his part, Lavastida said he doubts that Benedict was even gesturing toward a limited re-thinking involving condoms and AIDS in marriage.
Aymond said it seemed possible that Benedict was, in fact, addressing that possibility, although only as a personal opinion.
In his own remarks in a pre-Thanksgiving video on the archdiocese’s website, Aymond cited Benedict’s first-version example of male prostitution, which Catholic teaching views as clearly immoral.
Aymond said Benedict’s remarks had changed nothing in the church’s prohibition of condoms as contraceptives. “He’s simply saying that if a person chooses not to follow the way of Jesus ... and they have AIDS, that they at least should think about protecting the person that they are engaging with,” he said.
Moreover, Aymond said, the stark right-vs-wrong tone of the media discussion thus far does not capture the way Catholic theology gives pastors room to try to apply general principles to real cases on the ground.
More likely, he said, if the church were to offer some guidance on the use of condoms within marriage to prevent disease, it would not likely be a blanket statement, but would express an ideal packaged with a recommendation that couples consult with a confessor or spiritual advisor.
[This is what I have always felt about decisions that some Catholics may have to make about contraception, abortion, but especially about taking a loved one off life support. They are literally life-and-death ssues that each individual or couple has to discuss privately with their confessor, and not play it out in public. Whatever decision they arrive at will be their personal responsiblity, that's all.]
Apropos, Ross Douthat's Nov. 23 Op-Ed column in the New York Times
douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/condoms-catholicism-and-ca...
that I have just seen is an excellent contribution to the current debate, not just on the issue of condom use but on other similar 'difficult' teachings by the Church. (I have posted it in the ISSUES thread.] He starts with the 'obvious' that only he so far has thought of doing - look back at what Cardinal Ratzinger said about the pastoral difficulties of enforcing 'difficult' Church teachings, in his last interview book with Seewald, God and the world, in which the now Pope specifically refers to 'the casuistry [i.e., moral reasoning] of individual cases'.... I don't agree with some conclusions that Douthat arrives at, but it's a good piece that balances orthodoxy and pragmatism.
On the same subject, I like the way Jimmy Akin summed up the pope's communications dilemma when speaking of touchy issues:
How to communicate a moral truth about limiting the harm caused by sin without appearing to give tacit permission to the sin itself or to other, related sins.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 29/11/2010 22:30]