Pope Says Condoms to Stop AIDS May Be Acceptable

[wammt]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/world/europe/21pope.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

Published: November 20, 2010

ROME — Pope Benedict XVI has said that condom use can be justified in some cases to help stop the spread of AIDS, the first Vatican exception to a long-held policy condemning condom use. The pope made the statement in a series of interviews with a German journalist, part of an extraordinary effort to address some of the harshest criticisms of his turbulent papacy.

The pope made clear that he considered the use of condoms a last resort and not a way to prevent conception. The example he gave of when they could be used was in the case of male prostitutes.

Amid his vigorous defense of the church in contemporary society, Benedict also acknowledged some of the church’s failings, like in the sexual abuse crisis, which he calls “a volcano of filth” sent by the devil. He pointed to a “readiness for aggression” among those who criticized him for revoking the excommunication of a bishop who denied the scope of the Holocaust.

Benedict also discussed his contentious speech in Regensburg, Germany, in 2006, which provoked the ire of the Muslim world; denounced drug abuse, explained what he described as the impossibility of ordaining women as priests, and, with surprising candor, said that if he did not feel up to the task of being pope, he would resign.

The revelations — which show the pope to be at once personal, provocative and largely unapologetic — come in the first book-length interview ever to be granted by a sitting pontiff, conducted in July by Peter Seewald, the author of two previous books of interviews with Benedict when he was still a cardinal.

In allowing the pope to speak for himself, the book is a clear acknowledgment of the challenges facing Benedict, 83, whose five-year-old papacy has suffered a series of profound crises, including over the sexual abuse of minors by priests. Even his greatest defenders concede his papacy has had grave communications problems.

The book “proves once again that Benedict XVI is his own best advocate,” said George Weigel, a papal biographer who wrote the introduction for the English-language edition of the book, “Light of the World,” which will be published on Tuesday. (The Vatican’s newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, published excerpts online on Saturday afternoon.)

In the book, Benedict upholds the view that the Roman Catholic Church does not see condoms as “a real or moral solution,” and says that they are “not really the way to deal with the evil of H.I.V. infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.”

But for the first time, he opened the door for at least some more open debate on the issue.

“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a 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 pope said.

Condoms have been a contentious issue ever since Pope Paul VI denounced birth control in his famous 1968 encyclical, “Humanae Vitae.” In recent years, bishops in Africa and elsewhere have been quietly calling on the Vatican to relax its stance to allow for condom use as part of a broader approach to fight the spread of H.I.V. and AIDS.

The Rev. Joseph Fessio, a former student of Benedict and the editor in chief of Ignatius Press, which is publishing the English-language edition of the book, said the pope’s remarks on condoms were among the most surprising in the volume.

“It’s very carefully qualified,” he said. “It would be wrong to say, ‘Pope Approves Condoms.’ He’s saying it’s immoral but in an individual case the use of a condom could be an awakening to someone that he’s got to be more conscious of his actions.”

The book also devotes an entire chapter to the sexual abuse crisis which roared back this spring, likening it to a natural disaster that marred a year he had intended to celebrate priests.

He says he was not surprised by the scandal, having spent 25 years as the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican office that handles doctrinal and disciplinary questions, and which victims and critics have accused of not acting swiftly and decisively enough in tackling abuse or punishing abusive priests.

In the book, Benedict says of the abuse crisis that erupted in the United States in 2001: “We responded to the matter in America immediately with revised, stricter norms. In addition, collaboration between the secular and ecclesiastical authorities was improved. Would it have been Rome’s duty, then, to say to all the countries expressly: Find out whether you are in the same situation? Maybe we should have done that.”

And he acknowledged that the scandal had undermined the moral authority of the Catholic Church. “It is not only the abuse that is upsetting, it is also the way of dealing with it. The deeds themselves were hushed up and kept secret for decades. That is a declaration of bankruptcy for an institution that has love written on its banner

Edited November 21, 2010 by wammt

[Hotload84]

This article from the NY Times touches on several points of controversy in which the Church has found itself embroiled. The Holy Father's comment about male prostitutes and condom use is commonsense, and, like many other commonsense statements, merely in keeping with what priests, religious, sisters and brothers on the street have been saying for years. I, for one, have never spoken with a priest who took a mono-dimensional view of human sexuality. Doubtless such priests exist, but I dare say many, if not most of them, are grand-standing, mostly for the benefit of their colleagues. Of course the arch-conservatives are already back-pedaling, trying to redefine what the Pope said. After all, God forbid the individual should be challenged to interpret his life experiences by his own intellect. Much better to goose-step in accordance with a very flawed ecclesiastical hierarchy. Every time I hear a clergyman preach about infallibility (whether that of the Pope or the bishops speaking as a whole) I recall how many times the Gospels report Jesus bitch-slapped St. Peter. I find it no less interesting that, apparently, St. Peter's stances shifted on occasion as a consequence of superior argument. And that was merely in the context of his life - he was martyred around 67 AD.

How many more times the papacy has shifted its position as circumstances evolved. Are we looking at another such shift? We'll see. Was the Pope motivated by a new-found sense of humility? After all, he has been bitch-slapped (and arguably reasonably so) a great deal during his relatively short reign. Or did the reporter simply ask the right question? I understand his question was something like this: "Isn't it madness to argue against condom use under the following examples?" The examples centered on instances where condom use was clearly serving to preserve life, rather than those circumstances which the Church argues such use serve to intervene in the transmission of life. I hope I can find a transcript of the interview.

[bottomcub85]

Ridiculous that this is even news worthy. Call me when the Pope stops lying to children about sin and hellfire.

[Hotload84]

Ridiculous that this is even news worthy. Call me when the Pope stops lying to children about sin and hellfire.

While I'm not sure expressly what lies attributed to the Pope bottomcub85 is referring to, I certainly can understand the voice of cynicism. The hierarchy of the Church has gone to great lengths to alienate great numbers of its traditional membership, let alone those on the outside. I recall a remark a friend made several years ago to the effect that the Church's stances on many, many issues would ultimately induce virtually all to regard the organization as irrelevant. Every time I see the Church withdraw, in the name of apparent inflexibility, from another of its traditional areas of focus (I'm thinking of the adoption business, in particular), my friend's prognostication comes back with a vengeance. Schools that fire out lesbians and gays or refuse to accept the children of same-sex couples are a sign the Church will be ultimately be forced to withdraw from much of the education arena. Twenty centuries down the drain for failure to adapt.

[hairypwet]

Why is it so hard to understand a simple statement. If a criminal goes to rob a Seven-Eleven and empties his gun to avoid possibily shooting someone, doing so may show a certain moral awareness. That is not a statement approving robbery.