Media barriers to truth
An interview by Kathryn Jean Lopez
November 29, 2010
So what exactly did the Pope say in his new book and what does the Catholic Church say about condom use? Father Thomas D. Williams is a Michigan-born Catholic priest, professor at Regina Apostolorum University in Rome
[the university run by the Legionaries of Christ and Regnum Christi], and author of
Knowing Right from Wrong: A Christian Guide to Conscience, Greater Than You Think, and
A Heart Like His, among other books. He took some questions about the current papal media frenzy about condoms.
We’ve read in the New York Times that the Pope is sowing confusion on condoms in the new book-length interview with him, Light of the World. What’s the Pope thinking going around confusing people?
The fact is that people, including Catholics and even many priests, are already confused about the Church’s teaching on contraception and natural family planning. They know that the Church opposes contraception
[artificial contraception, it must be made clear!] but they don’t know why.
The Pope’s remarks didn’t cause this confusion but they did bring it to the fore. All this attention on the possibility of using condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS in Africa actually provides us with a singular “teaching moment.”
People are asking important questions: Why is the Church opposed to
[artificial] contraception? What about the use of condoms in homosexual relationships? How about condoms in the case of prostitutes? Unmarried couples? These issues are usually taboo, and now is a great time to discuss them.
So what did he actually say?
Very simply, Pope Benedict, after making it clear that AIDS cannot be defeated just by distributing condoms, noted that the use of condoms in certain cases (he specifically mentioned the case of prostitutes) may constitute “a first step in the direction of a moralization” or “a first assumption of responsibility.”
In other words, while using a condom doesn’t make sex with a prostitute a morally good act, it can represent a better option than the same act without a condom.
Now does that mean that the media got it right? That this is an exception to the Church’s ban on contraception?
Not at all. Some people are saying that the Church considers contraception to be morally evil, but in cases where human life is at stake, it could be a lesser evil. In other words, protection from disease trumps the moral prohibition of contraception. This is incorrect.
Catholic morality never accepts that evil may be done to attain a good end. The end does not justify the means. The Pope’s statement actually underscores a totally different point. Contraception doesn’t add moral evil to sex with a prostitute. If anything, it lessens that evil.
What many fail to realize is that the Church’s opposition to contraception refers specifically to sex between husbands and wives. In his 1968 encyclical
Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI placed his condemnation of contraception in the context of married couples, and never intended it to be applied to every conceivable sexual act.
Contraception is wrong because it violates the integrity of marital intercourse by intentionally frustrating the procreative meaning of the act. Marital intercourse has both a unitive and procreative dimension, both of which are essential to the wholeness of the act.
Let’s take an extreme case: that of rape. Would the use of a condom by a rapist add a moral evil to his already heinous act? It is, after all, a sexual act. By no means. There is nothing about the act of rape that merits respect of a supposed “unitive” and “procreative” meaning of the act. These are entirely missing, though the act is undoubtedly sexual.
In the case of rape, or sex with a prostitute, there simply is no procreative meaning to the act. There is no sacredness to be respected, no reason to uphold the “integrity” of the act. Sex with a prostitute has no unitive or procreative meaning, since it is a banal act of sexual commerce.
If we understand clearly why the Church opposes contraception in the case of married couples, it is easier to understand why sex with a prostitute is a different animal altogether and the use of a contraceptive adds no moral evil to an already disordered act.
What about the case of the many unmarried couples that use contraception?
There is no official Church teaching on this case and the jury is still out. Orthodox moral theologians debate this issue, since it isn’t clear.
An act of fornication (the technical term for sex between two unmarried people) is evil in itself. Does contraception add a further evil to this act? The Church hasn’t ruled one way or the other. Even if the Church were to determine that contraception does not add an evil to fornication, since the act is already sinful and a corruption of God’s intention for sexual relations, she still wouldn’t go around trumpeting this, for a number of other good, pastoral reasons.
For one,
if a young couple planning to get married engages in sexual activity and practices contraception, though this latter fact may add no more sinfulness to their activity, it still accustoms them to disassociating sexual intercourse from its procreative meaning, and this will make it much harder for them to understand the full meaning of their sexual activity once they are married.
Why the male prostitute example? Was that bad PR? Someone should have known that could turn into the story from the book.
Pope Benedict has always been remarkably candid and never beats around a bush. I think that this comes from his fundamental attitude toward the truth: something to be embraced, never feared.
I don’t think he spends an awful lot of time considering all the possible consequences of his statements. He answers honestly, and lets the chips fall where they will.
Did Benedict realize that his answers would produce this kind of fallout? Perhaps. Perhaps he was willing to accept this, and perhaps he welcomed it as a chance to bear witness to a truth that people often ignore.
You’ve written a book on conscience. Is there a lesson about just that in what the Pope has to say?
The Pope cares deeply about right and wrong. He welcomes any opportunity to bear witness to the truth and to stir up debate about important issues. He understands that as successor to St. Peter, this is part of his mission.
He believes firmly that the Church’s teaching about morality and ,yes, this includes contraception, is a truth that doesn’t shackle human beings but liberates them. God’s law is ultimately a blueprint for the thoroughly good, fulfilling life we are all created for.
Still, is this some kind of first step in the Church changing its position on condoms in some kind of dramatic way? Can it? Even a friendly commentator in the Washington Post called what the Pope said a “trial balloon.”
I think from what we have already said it is clear that the Church is not reconsidering her stance on the evil of contraception. Moreover, the Popes have made it clear that the matter isn’t up for discussion.
Rather, the current debate allows the Church to clarify why she is opposed to the use of contraception in marriage, and why, in cases such as prostitution, it is a moot point.
Since most Catholics don’t understand why contraception is wrong on the first place, this whole debate will furnish an especially helpful opportunity for moral education on a broad scale.
By getting so out of sorts about condoms, is the media missing out on the Pope’s message?
Undoubtedly. The Pope himself said as much in his recent book. Condoms will never be the answer to preventing HIV-AIDS in Africa (or anywhere else), and those countries that have relied most on condoms to stem their aids epidemics have suffered a much higher rate of new cases of aids that countries that have adopted a more thoroughgoing approach to the problem.
Is the “abstinence, be faithful, condoms” approach to AIDS in Africa — which the Bush administration supported – evil?
No, it is not evil. Since the Church is opposed to contraception because she is convinced that it doesn’t help people to live satisfying, moral lives, she will always be uncomfortable with any program that involves this measure.
At the same time, the Church is also realistic, and sometimes accepts less-than-perfect measures if they represent a better option than other programs currently in place.
Since it aims primarily at changing people’s sexual behavior, A-B-C is both a more effective — and a more moral — approach to combatting the scourge of AIDS than programs that rely heavily or exclusively on distributing condoms.
As a member of the Legionaries of Christ, was there anything in particular you were looking for in what he had to say about scandals in the Church?
I found Pope Benedict’s words about the Legionaries immensely consoling. He expressed sentiments that many of us Legionaries share. He said that our founder “remains a mysterious figure. There is, on the one hand, a life that, as we now know, was out of moral bounds — an adventurous, wasted, twisted life. On the other hand, we see the dynamism and the strength with which he built up the congregation of Legionaries.”
He added that, “corrections must be made, but by and large the congregation is sound.” For those of us who have given our lives to the Church within this congregation, such words provide great hope and comfort.
What’s the damage done by this misreporting? How can it be turned around?
Honestly, in my mind the greatest damage done is by Catholics, and even moral theologians, who misrepresent the Church’s position on contraception, and thereby stoke the confusion that already exists.
On the other hand, it also provides the Church with
a beautiful opportunity to catechize the faithful regarding sexual ethics.
[Only if those who catechize know what they're saying, and are saying the right things! One can't be very hopeful of that, since overall, they have not managed to do it properly since Humanae vitae. And that is why Benedict XVI refers to Catholics who uphold HV as 'minorities'.]
Catholics must realize that far from something to be ashamed of, the Church’s moral teaching on human sexuality is a precious gift for all mankind, and offers an effective antidote against the dehumanizing view of sex that reigns in much of our contemporary world.
{Which was the point of the Pope's remarks on condom use in the book.]
THE FSSPX REACTION
The FSSPX yesterday published online two opinions regarding the Pope's statements on condoms. The first one, unsigned, dated Nov. 26 from Menzingen, the FSSPX headquarters, and released in four language versions incuding English, says at the outset:
In a book-length interview entitled Light of the World, which was released in German, Italian and English on November 23, 2010, Benedict XVI admits, for the first time, the use of condoms “in certain cases” “to reduce the risks of infection” by the AIDS virus. These erroneous remarks require clarification and correction, for their disastrous effects — which a media campaign has not failed to exploit — cause scandal and disarray among the faithful.
...and proceeds to cite chapter and verse of what previous Popes have said about contraception, asserting that
while Benedict XVI said in the book that the Church "does not regard condoms as a real or moral solution", the Pope "cites an exceptional situation, and he does not recall that the Church is always fundamentally opposed to condom use". [That's splitting hairs! Isn't that the same as 'does not regard iit as a real or moral solution'? The article does recognize that the Pope was not speaking magisterially in the book.]
The other opinion is found in a full-blown book review signed by Abbe Matthias Gaudron, rector of the FSSPX seminary in Zaitkofen near Regensburg, and one of the FSSPX theologians taking part in the doctrinal discussions on Vatican II with Vatican theologians. In his book review, Gaudron first deals with the condom statements:
In fact, the Pope simply said that one can see in the use of a condom by a prostitute to prevent the transmission of AIDS a first step towards his own moralization and assumption of responsibility.
But he says further:
To be polite, the statement is weak. That sexuality cannot be lived in conformity with the will of God and worthy of human dignity other than within marriage, and that in marriage, the condom or any other means of artificial contraception must be rejected morally, is clearly not denied by the Pope, but neither does he state it clearly, which is very necessary in our day.
Because of this, and in his desire to go as far as he can to confront the secularized world without offending anyone, he shares with the media a certain responsibility for the confusion and the disappointment that his statements have provoked these days among the faithful.
Both FSSPX statements contribute with facts to the discussion, even if one may not agres with all or some of the conclusions drawn. I have posted the first one, restricted to the condom issue, in the ISSUES thread. After I translate Abbe Gaudron's full book review, I will post it on this thread.
BTW, the FSSPX reaction, even the more hardline one, is not as vehement as some of the outraged (and outrageous) more-Popish-than-the-Pope commentary that has been written by 'normal' convservative Catholics. It's a hopeful sign for the ongoing doctrinal discussions.
The 'hardliners' would do well to read Amy Welborn's USA Today commentary, in which she condenses what the Holy Father's attitude is about proposing and instilling the faith: 'It's not my job to either change the teaching or declare you eternally condemned for your failures in living it. That's God's job. And I'm not God.'
In the book, he says:
The Church is not here to place burdens on the shoulders of mankind, and she does not offer some sort of moral system. The really crucial thing is that the Church offers Him (Christ). That she opens wide the doors to God and so gives people what they are most waiting for and what can most help them.
It is analogous and consistent with what he wrote in JESUS OF NAZARETH:
But what has Jesus really brought, then, if he has not brought world peace, universal prosperity, and a better world? What has he brought? The answer is very simple: God. He has brought God!
As he says, early in LOTW, when talking about what a Pope can actually do: "Only the Lord himself has the power to keep people in the faith."
He often says, as he does in a variety of ways in this new book, that when you start with God, then everything else follows. But you have to start with God. And that is and has been the consistent message of his Pontificate.
When I posted Russell Shaw's book review of LOTW last Saturday (see preceding page) - which is supposed to be in the 12/5/10 print issue of Our Sunday Visitor, I was not aware he had written an earlier commentary in the OSV daily post, which I am posting here for the record. And you can't say it's dated' by now, because any review of online headlines concerning the Pope and the Church still has more than half proclaiming 'Pope confirms his approval of condom use', though some now add 'against disease'...
Once again, Vatican flubbed
its media relations
By Russell Shaw
Nov. 26, 2010
The first and perhaps most important thing to say about Pope Benedict XVI’s remarks on the subject of condoms and AIDS is that they in no way change the Church’s teaching that contraception is wrong. If the Pope’s comments were a “game changer,” as Jesuit Father James Martin of America magazine says, this wasn’t the game.
Nor did Pope Benedict depart from his previously stated position — the position of the Church — that abstinence is the morally correct course of action for someone infected with HIV. Sexual abstinence may not be popular today, but morality is about what’s right, not what’s popular.
So what did the Pope say about these matters that was new in his book-length interview with German journalist Peter Seewald, published in English as "Light of the World" (Ignatius Press)? Just this.
If someone infected with HIV nevertheless persists in sexual activity despite its wrongness, at least it should be in a way that involves the least potential harm to the other party — by using a condom, that is. This is a minimal step in the direction of responsibility. It was here that Pope Benedict offered his now-famous example of a male prostitute.
I don’t mean to dismiss the newness of this papal statement. It will be discussed for a long time to come. But to call it a “seismic shift” in Church teaching, as an AP story did, was over the edge. What the Church has long taught remains fully intact.
Contrary to some of the commentary, Pope Benedict was not advocating the choice of the “lesser evil.” Evil, whether lesser or greater, may never be chosen.
If it’s necessary to lift a phrase out of the moral theology manuals, try “double effect.” In a double effect situation, the same action produces two results, one good and one bad, and in certain circumstances it can be allowable to perform the action for the sake of the good, though never the bad. Condom use to prevent HIV transmission could be something like that.
The Pope’s remarks do not apply to the situation of a married couple who believe that pregnancy would threaten the woman’s life. Preventing conception (something good in itself) and preventing the transmission of a deadly disease (something bad in itself) are radically different in a moral perspective. The only right — and responsible — course of action for a couple like this is abstinence. [Hurray for another 'orthodox realist'!]
A lot of people have blamed the media for the confusion that has surrounded this incident. In some instances, the media did indeed blow it, but that was hardly their fault.
Seewald’s book carried a Nov. 23 embargo. On Nov. 20, L’Osservatore Romano published excerpts — reportedly with 'authorization' from the Vatican publishing house — and thereby broke the embargo. This in turn led to an eminently predictable media frenzy.
As far as I can tell, moreover, the Vatican had no plan in place to provide journalists with an authoritative background briefing by experts in order supply explanation and interpretation of what the pope had said.
Instead, the director of the press office issued a statement and then went ahead with a previously scheduled Nov. 23 news conference to plug the book. The result of that was to keep the story alive and give some newcomers a well publicized opportunity to get their oars in and add to the confusion that already existed.
In sum, nothing fundamental has changed. Pope Benedict shed some new light on a relatively new question. The Vatican flubbed its media relations one more time. That’s about all.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 30/11/2010 23:28]