That is exactly what I think!May the Almighty have mercy on us!
What a mess! How is it possible?Francesca
This books seems to announce a catastrophe of the same magnitude as the promulgation of the 1970 New Missal. We are living apocalyptic times.
What a mess! How is this possible? Why would the Holy Father give all these strange ambiguous messages about such delicate matters in a book interview? I really don't understand.It's like a bad dream. Wake me up someone! Blessed Mother, never leave us! Barbara, Italy
Wasn't this book published previously under the title "I'm OK, You're OK"?
Have any of you actually read the book??
Pray, pray much for the Holy Father said Our Lady of Fatima to the seers.While no one can judge the Holy Father, and more so any individual, in his intentions, the interview and the casual and almost uninhibited style of response appears grossly imprudent to say the least.However, some things come of this:- The Pope has secured maximum marketing blitz for his book and will score the maximum number of sales for it as a result.- It has guaranteed that the "Church's true teaching" on the use of prophylactics will be in the limelight for at least a couple of weeks and heatedly so in "practicing Catholic" circles- It will serve as a kick in the pants to the remnant of faithful Catholic priests and bishops to reiterate possibly from the pulpits the true teaching of the Church on onanism, which in turn may convert a few in the pews who should but do not know better.- To those with eyes to see it will expose the anti-Christs and Pope-haters among the Vatican rank and file ever more clearly, most notably Lombardi, L'Osservatore Romano and others in the Vatican who conspired to twist the message in such a way as to pervert even those who might be saved.The only thing I can think of in favor of the Holy Father, although I still believe it would have been gravely imprudent, is that he said what he said to bait those he suspected within his Vatican would pounce on an opportunity to twist Church doctrine to their ends. And in so doing would know who to fire.In any case, brethren, I say, Be of good cheer, no matter the noise and din. "Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vainthat build it. Except the Lord keep the city, he watchethin vain that keepeth it" Ps. cxxvi. i.He has already overcome the darkness. Be steadfast and pray.Sincerely, Neophyte
It's in people's hands in Rome... but where's my copy, pre-ordered on Amazon! Really looking forward to reading it.
Last week I hoped it was a fabrication. I was sure this imprudent statements could not come from a Pope, any real Pope.This week I feel completely disappointed. The statements are all over the world now, we a the mock of liberals and atheists, and worst of all, I can't find any way of defending this mess.
Anon 22:09 -- Priceless!
It has finally become amusing. Since the Supreme Pontiff can never be criticized or "judged", God Forbid, there is much tip toeing around his gargantuan mess. The fact of the matter is that the Emperor has no clothes. Actually the last few Emperors had no clothes.
Thank you, New Catholic, for putting such a beautiful imagine from my beautiful city of Genoa. (Try imagine that the lion is Cardinal Siri, and that lion is nearly crying, in these days...)
I don't get it. What is the picture symbolizing?
A fiasco. Where is Cardinal Ottaviani when you need him.
@ Anon 23:07What are you talking about? Of course he can be criticized. And he will be.There is nothing involving papal infallibility in this context (an extended interview). Catholics have been criticizing the prudential judgement of Paul VI regarding the promulgation of the New Missal since 1970. In this respect I can't expect that a retraction of some kind will not come.
Wow, people are really paranoid. The pope is allowed to be inexact or even wrong in his private opinions. The sad part is that people dont seem to recognize that he is doing something that every other Catholic should be doing. That is attacking the current culture and evangelizing. Most people in this world cannot give hours of interviews and come up with perfect clarity of thought the whole time. Give it a rest people.
\\Since the Supreme Pontiff can never be criticized \\Yes, he can--and he is NOT an emperor.However, I would like to know what His Holiness actually said in context, instead of what the secular media has made of a cherry-picked quote and repeated like gossip.**I was sure this imprudent statements could not come from a Pope, any real Pope.**Do you mean to say that John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I & II, and Benedict XVI are not real Popes?
This made it especially difficult for us Filipino Catholics who are currently combating the anti-life Reproductive Health Bill in the Philippine Congress. Pro-RH activists are now invoking the name of the Pope to bolster support for their Satanic cause.
I don't get it. What is the picture symbolizing?It is a comparison of the Holy Father's imprudent and almost-impossible-not-to-misunderstand words to the mythical Pandora opening the box out of which come all manner of evils that will never be able to be put back in the box.
Jordanes: In that case, a great choice of image. Nevertheless, it should be closed easily enough. If His Holiness has time for a book-length interview, surely he can also make some room for clearing up the confusion his comments have caused?
Sadly, even if you close the box you won't get the evils back inside. The international media jumped on this, predictably, and have trumpeted to the world that the Catholic Church now says contraception and condoms are A-OK. No matter what the Holy Father says now, even if he issues a plain and clear encyclical on the subject, the media will not report it accurately nor with the intensity and perverse glee that they have misreported his imprudent comments. It will take a long time for the Church to recover from the damage inflicted these past few days, and many souls will be lost.This is a disaster. Lord, have mercy.
I'm not so sure. "Pope Forbids Condoms For Everyone Always" would make a great headline, as would "Church Flip-Flops On Condom Issue". I'm sure a clear, precise, and succinct explanation is both possible and necessary. I'm a lot less sure that it's coming, however.
The Pope's remarks regarding condoms is shocking and a disaster in so many ways.Other than that debacle, what is it about the Seewald book that has left Traditional Catholics shocked and dismayed in regard to Pope Benedict XVI?Did Traditional Catholics expect the Pope to present himself as a staunch Traditionalist?Does anybody other than conservative Catholics believe that the Pope is a staunch Traditionalist?We knew that he has made it clear that the Novus Ordo is here to stay.He does not reject Communion in the hand.Altar girls at Mass are valid, according to His Holiness.He teaches that the Church is committed "irrevocably" to ecumenism and interfaith "dialogue."We knew, of course, that he replaced the Traditional Good Friday prayer for the Jews with his own prayer.The only thing in regard to that decision is that he refused until now to have informed the Church as to why he had cast aside the traditional prayer in question.The traditional prayer was not "positive" and served to have "wounded" Jews...that and his having grown up in Nazi Germany spurred His Holiness to have swept aside the traditional prayer.Incredible. But the traditional prayer is history.On September 12, 2008, the Pope informed journalists that Summorum Pontificum "is merely an act of tolerance, with a pastoral aim, for those people who were brought up with this liturgy, who love it, are familiar with it and want to live with this liturgy."Again, other than his condom-related comments, why has Seewald's book thrown Traditional Catholics into a state of shock in regard to the Pope's mindset?
Perhaps some of you should read this before you crucify the Holy Father...By Fr. Fessio-http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/11/23/guestview-did-the-pope-%E2%80%9Cjustify%E2%80%9D-condom-use-in-some-circumstances/
Those of you who think the Vatican can control its image in the media are kidding themselves. This misreporting is all a game, just as it is in politics. Eventually the media gets you to bend a knee, and get you so concerned with your image, that you become ... like them. The church is meant to be hated. Embrace the scorn. The elite media is not the vehicle to teach the masses about Catholicism.“If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because he called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly, it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. -Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen (1895-1979)
Good day all,In case you haven't read them, these links have helped clarify the issue for me.The first by Jimmy Akin:http://www.ncregister.com/blog/the-pope-said-what-about-condoms/And the second by the wonderfully eloquent Anglo-Catholic Fr. John Hunwicke:http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2010/11/but.htmlGod bless
"Last week I hoped it was a fabrication. I was sure this imprudent statements could not come from a Pope, any real Pope.This week I feel completely disappointed. The statements are all over the world now, we a the mock of liberals and atheists, and worst of all, I can't find any way of defending this mess."I feel exactly the same way, I am at loss in what to say.
"In case you haven't read them, these links have helped clarify the issue for me."They have? How so?I did not find that the links clarified the issue.
In case you haven't read them, these links have helped clarify the issue for me.The first by Jimmy Akin:http://www.ncregister.com/blog/the-pope-said-what-about-condoms/----------------Mister Akin typed how many words?...hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds and required a "three part series" to "clarify" a few words uttered by Pope Benedict XVI.Sorry, but when somebody goes to such an extreme to "clarify" a comment, that makes me believe that something is terribly wrong with the entire situation.I don't buy Mr. Akin's spin control.
A poster recommended that we read a couple of clarifications, one of which was written by Jimmy Akin.The poster said that "these links have helped clarify the issue for me."I just read the clarification written by Jimmy Akin.Near the finish of his clarification, Mr. Akin said the following in regard to the Pope's remarks on condoms:http://www.ncregister.com/blog/new-developments-on-the-pope-and-condoms/"I thus see there as still being a significant amount of ambiguity here, and I would expect further clarification with time. "As things progress, we should get more evidence about whether the Pope intended the moral awareness view or the less evil view."----------------------------Mr. Akin said that the Pope's comments contained "a significant amount of ambiguity here..."Mr. Akin said that he "would expect further clarification with time."Could the poster who recommended that we read Mr. Akin's "clarification," please tell me what Mr. Akin clarified?Could anybody tell me what Mr. Akin clarified?Mr. Akin "expects further clarification with time."Seriously, does anybody have any idea as to what the Pope actually meant?Everybody and everyone issued clarifications and they turn around and admit that they themselves away additional clarification.This is mind-boggling. Utterly beyond belief.
Light of the world? I'd call it 'Moral Philosophy Light'. It was a huge mistake to make statements on this subject in a private book, where complete explanations are difficult. The result of this imprudence has been massive confusion, as the world press announces that the Church has reversed herself.Just great!First they betray the Traditional Anglican Communion by trying to substitute, in the case of England and Wales, absorption for corporate and sacramental union. Now this. I'm a bit flabbergasted, really.P.K.T.P.
The C.B.C. went to town on the Pope in the most vile way possible this evening, and has said that he has, and I quote, "Baptized condom use". It is rare that such a ship of fools as the Canadian media is given this sort of opportunity to wreck havoc. P.K.T.P.
Anon. 3.58:I wouldn't want to read anything Fr. Fessio writes.The problem here is actually not what the Pope said (unless he does mean to include prevention of conception, which now seems likely). It has more to do with the way the message was delivered--or under-delivered.Well, now we know why this Pope has dropped the tiara from his personal arms and abolished the title of Patriarch of the West. He is trying to divest himself of his authority.P.K.T.P.
If a chain murderer who always tortured his victims one day decided that he would no longer cause his victims to suffer and would begin shooting them instead, that would be a beginning of moral awakening.If a male prostitute one day decided that he would try to stop spredding AIDS to his clients by wearing a condom, that would, similarly, be a beginning of moral awakening.It would, of course, be a gross distortion to claim that I just said that shooting people in the head and using condoms are morally acceptable. When it comes to the Church, however, the press loves that kind of distortion.
"Wow, people are really paranoid. The pope is allowed to be inexact or even wrong in his private opinions"really?I find it amusing when some folks are so easy-going when they want to. This is more of the same: all is OK.Sorry, with all due respect, I firmly say this are VERY imprudent remarks coming from a Pope. Aside from this, the Pope had plenty of time, this is not a casual comment made in a hurry (even though this wouldn't be an excuse for a Pope either). This was a careful interview with controlled questions and editing.And guess what?? He is talking about MORAL, something even my 15 year old boy knows about the Church position on condoms. This is not the Pope giving an opinion about a temporal matter where there are different points or the point is still unclear. Do you still think nobody checked this book or even the Pope had the chance to review his own answers?Sorry, I doubt it.
There is an expression in Italian which describes perfectly what all these well-intentioned people are doing when they write long-winded explanations - "arrampicare sugli specchi" (climbimg mirrors)... It would appear that, they, like all faithful Catholics don't want to accept that the Holy Father has been imprudent and has made a grave mistake with this interview book. I DONT want to accept it.(I am perfectly aware also that he is not advocating contraception) I repeat, I don't understand WHY he gave such an interview. I mean what's the point when one already IS the highest moral authority in the world? His personal opinions should be kept for another platform.(like really private, considering his high office) In my view, this is why this whole situation is so shocking.Barbara, Italy
Phil Lawler of Catholic Culture says "the launch of the, "Light of the World" should have been another joyful occasion", but was undermined by the L' Osservatore Romano leak. Yes, Phil, we've had so many other joyful occasions to celebrate lately. Have another kool-aid?http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catholics-and-journalists-call-for-heads-to-roll-at-losservatore-romano/
Such an august gathering of commentators more Catholic than the Pope. The Pope’s comments, properly construed, are fully in line with the Magisterium. Whether the manner in which they were communicated will open a Pandaora’s box is certainly open to dispute, but there is flirtation with a protestant ecclesiology on the part of those that disagree with the Pope.
Your Holiness,We are confused concerning statements allegedly made by you in Seewald's book regarding condoms. Would you please consider clarifying the remarks to indicate that in no way do you advocate the use of condoms, either as a measure to regulate birth, or to prevent the spread of disease, and that abstinence is now and always has been the Church-mandated moral alternative?
Brian said:"If a male prostitute one day decided that he would try to stop spredding AIDS to his clients by wearing a condom,"In the late 1970's when my husband and I started having children and we were living in graduate student housing at the Univ. of Wisconsin in Madison I don't know HOW many times I heard from couples, "Oh, he's/she's our CONDOM baby."Then, it was the way couples who contracepted and had more than 2 children would justify their 3rd or even 2nd "the CONDOM broke." Of course they didn't want you to think they weren't trying to PLAN everything and because condoms have NEVER, EVER been full-proof it allowed couples to feel empathy because they "tried" not to conceive but of course they were using the condom which as we all know BREAKS!!And now, today, the CONDOM is made of steel??! I don't think so...ask any "CONDOM baby."
Remember what remained in the box was Hope. At least we have that to hold on to.
Long skirts you have missed Brian point completely. The premise is not whether the condoms works all the time or not but the realisation of the prostitute that he is dealing with another human being. Go back to Brians original comment about the chainsaw murderer. Just because he uses a gun does not mean everytime he will kill the person instantly. The gun could jam and more anxiety could come upon the Victim as the murderer fixes the Gun. Or the Murderer could miss the head or heart and could inflict the person with a fatal wound that could leave him dying for hours.the point is that the murderer and the prostitute are finally come to an awareness that they are dealing with other human beings. In neither case are we endorsing murder or prostitution. Neither are we endorsing the way of murdering or the way the prostitute does business
here is a link to what the Pope actually saidwww.catholicworldreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=221:pope-benedict-xvi-discusses-condoms-and-the-spread-of-hiv&catid=53:cwr2010&Itemid=70where exactly has the Pope changed Catholic Teaching?
For RR,Protestant flirtation! Give me a break! They key words you used "properly construed" are exactly the problem. An ordinary Catholic like myself shouldn't have to construe anything that our Holy Father says. It should be clear. And his comments are not so clear....hence the DIN worldwide! I am free to disagree with the Pope when he expresses personal ideas and still remain completely Catholic. I disagree with the idea of a Pope giving "book interviews" They are not Magisterium and I am in no way obliged to swallow everything in them.....unhappily, I might add, as I love our present Holy Father. Barbara, Italy
Anonymous 16:01said..."Long skirts you have missed Brian point completely. The premise is not whether the condoms works all the time or not... "With all due respect I completely understand what Brian was saying but I am talking about the use of condoms for ANYone in our "Safe-Sex" always-society. As long as you are using "safe-sex" techniques and "planning" you are considered a responsible person. Condoms break and help to spread Aids but at least the prostitute can now feel good about it. Yep..."I'm Okay and ...he's dead."ALL prostitutes know that they're dealing with another human being
The Pope's ill-advised comments are not binding on the faithful in the least.As Pope Benedict cautioned in the foreword of "Jesus of Nazareth," "this book is in no way an exercise of the magisterium," and that "everyone is free . . . to contradict me."I agree with other commenters here that this interview idea was imprudent and disastrous; it may take a future pope to undo the damage and "walk this back" now that the cat has been let out of the bag and everyone in the world believes the Pope has approved condoms for everyone.Remember, when the Pope pontificates, it is supposed to be in a formally promulgated, carefully worded document issued to the entire Church, not a soundbyte made during a casual conversation. The faithful are not obliged in the least to accept the Pope's opinion in this matter, and nor are they obliged to defend his actions. I'm afraid His Holiness is on his own on this one, and, speaking for myself, I'm going to opt out of the conservative spin cycle.
What if the hypothetical male, HIV-infected prostitute is solicited by a woman? His action with her without a prophylactic is gravely sinful, but still secundum naturam. If he starts to wear a prophylactic, his act is now rendered sodomitic, contra naturam. This is far worse.
I wonder why some Popes love these interviewing/book thing... what is the gain? What is the need? What is the benefit for the Church?
Another thought came to mind about that whole Pandora's box anxiety that many of us who care deeply about the Church and her mission to teach the unchanging truths revealed by Jesus Christ, the God Man.Our forerunners in the Faith were accused in the pagan Roman media of orgies and cannibalism. And following the desperate actions of Guy Fawkes and later on of the IRA terrorists, Catholics were called terrorists and murderers. And then Luther and the Protestant printing presses called us idolaters, and spun stories of Popes torturing and gouging the eyes out of heroic scientists.And this admittedly did serve to increase the persecution and hatred and martyrdom for a while (hundreds of years). And yes, some who might have been disposed to be attracted to the Truth discarded it for those reasons and were lost for eternity as a result.Was not Christ Himself called a demon by some?But that is the miracle of the promise of Jesus Christ. The gates of hell will never prevail.Meanwhile though, we brace for martyrdom, and yes, many souls will be lost, and some of these may be our own beloved ones, or even ourselves, and it is a tragedy. But a temporary one, and the Triune God will dispel all these myths sooner or later. And hopefully with the Holy Father's cooperation (he has a real opportunity now that the world is watching him to say "Huh, no way, you've got me all wrong), and that of each of one of us in prayer, and in our discourse with those raging heathens (looking at CBC's blogs many neo-pagans are now *angry*(!!!!) that the Pope and Church "took so long" to "admit" what they now perceive to be stated), and hopefully, nairy a moment too soon that promised Consecration of Russia, it will pass much sooner than it might otherwise.Sincerely, Neophyte
Some inspiration I wanted to share with my brethren at this time of sorrow:“your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour ; whom resist ye, strong in faith” i Pet. v. 8.“Our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers ; against the rulers of the world of this darkness ; against the spirits of wickedness in the high places” Eph. vi. 12. “The life of man upon earth is a warfare”Job, vii. i.“The Lord your God trieth you, that it may appear whether you love Him with all your heart, and with all your soul, or no” Deut. xiii. 3.“Blessed is the man that endureth temptation ; for when he hath been proved, he shall receive the crown of life, which God hath promised to them that love Him” James, i. 12“There was given me a sting of my flesh, an angel of Satan to buffet me. For which thing I thrice besought the Lord, that it might depart from me. And He said to me, My grace is sufficient for thee; for power is made perfect in infirmity”2 Cor. xii. 7.“My brethren, count it all joy when you shall fall into divers temptations. Knowing that the trying of your faith worketh patience; and patience hath a perfect work, that you may be perfect and entire, failing in nothing”; James, i. 2.“Finally, brethren, be strengthened in the Lord, and in the power of His might. Put you on the armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil. ... In all things taking the shield of faith, wherewith you may be able to extinguish all the fiery darts of the most wicked one. ... By all prayer and supplication, praying at all times in the Spirit, and in the same watching with all instance” Eph. vi. 10, 16, 18.“Be subject to God ; but resist the devil, and he will fly from you. Draw nigh to God, and He will draw nigh to you” James, iv. 7.Sincerely, Neophyte
"The Pope's ill-advised comments are not binding on the faithful in the least."True. But the reality in regard to the Pope's interview with Peter Seewald is that Pope Benedict XVI has revealed his mindset and explained why he has done this and that.Example: We knew that the Pope had cast aside the Traditional Good Friday Prayer for the Jews.Leading conservative spin doctors such as Father Zuhlsdorf assured us that the Pope changed said prayer to:1. Make the prayer even more "powerful" in conveying to the Jews that they must convert to the Church.2. To strenghten the Church's missionary reponse to the Jews.How absurd. But that's what conservatives had wished us to believe.But thanks to the new book in question, we know that the Pope swept aside the Traditional prayer as he believed that the Traditional Good Friday prayer "wounded" Jews, was not positive in nature and even more incredible, His Holiness cited his having lived in Nazi Germany as motivation to alter Holy Tradition.Mind-boggling! But that is the current state of Catholicism.Liturgical tinkering is linked in part to the Pope having lived in Germany during the years 1933 to 1945.The book is also of great importance as we can prepare ourselves for what is to come as we have gained a greater understanding as to the Pope's manner of thinking.For example, we know to brace ourselves for an icredible Faith-testing flip-flop in regard to Rome's teaching on condoms.We may also consign ourselves to the reality that despite conservatives having portrayed the Pope as a roll-the-clock-back Traditionalist, we are instead moving forward with the never-ending mixture of novelty and Holy Tradition.That formula has shipwrecked the Church, at least the Latin Church.The terrible collapse of Catholicism will continue.Sorry, but reality is reality."...in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel. — Letter of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to All the Bishops of the World, March 12, 2009; Catholic Online.
"And hopefully with the Holy Father's cooperation (he has a real opportunity now that the world is watching him to say "Huh, no way, you've got me all wrong)..."Wrong about what?The Pope is intelligent. He understood the ramifications of his remarks.Rome is preparing the Faithful for yet another shocking flip-flop, this time in regard to condoms.
Part 2VATICAN-CONDOMS April, 24, 2006Vatican preparing document on condom use and AIDS, official saysBy John ThavisCatholic News ServiceVATICAN CITY (CNS) -- In recent years, even as Vatican officials have criticized anti-AIDS condom campaigns, several bishops, theologians and Vatican officials have said they could envision situations in which condom use to prevent AIDS would be the "lesser evil" that can be tolerated. Cardinal Lozano, for example, said in 2005 that if a husband had AIDS, it was a woman's right to ask him to use a condom. In the context of married love, the church teaches that contraceptive techniques, including condoms, are immoral because they close off the possibility of procreation. Some theologians, including those who are consultors to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, have been among those suggesting that condom use by married couples may be acceptable when the intention is to prevent a deadly disease and not to prevent procreation. Cardinal Martini told the Italian magazine Espresso that a spouse infected with HIV has an obligation to protect his or her partner. At the same time, Cardinal Martini questioned whether religious leaders should promote anti-AIDS condom campaigns, because he said they risk promoting sexual irresponsibility. That has been the primary argument of other church leaders, who have also said -- as Pope Benedict did last June -- that chastity and fidelity are the only fail-safe ways to prevent the spread of the disease. In his interview with Espresso, Cardinal Martini also spoke at length about abortion. While calling for every effort to reduce the number of abortions, he said decriminalizing the practice has had the positive effect of reducing the number of clandestine abortions. Decriminalizing abortion does not represent a "license to kill," he said. He said it means the state does not feel it necessary to intervene in every possible case; instead, he said, the state tries to eliminate the causes of abortions and prevents them from being carried out after a certain point in pregnancy. Cardinal Martini also said that while one must do "whatever is possible and reasonable to defend and save every human life," there were complex and painful situations that require careful reflection and decisions on what is best for the person and what "concretely serves to protect or promote human life." "It is important to recognize that the continuation of physical human life is not in itself the first and absolute principle. Above it stands human dignity, a dignity that in the Christian vision and that of many religions involves an openness to the eternal life that God promises to man," he said. Physical human life should be respected and defended, he added, "but it is not the supreme and absolute value."
Part 3VATICAN-CONDOMS April, 24, 2006Vatican preparing document on condom use and AIDS, official saysBy John ThavisCatholic News ServiceVATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Cardinal Martini said he did not believe the principles of self-defense or "lesser evil" could be applied to cases of abortion, unless the mother's life was actually threatened by carrying the pregnancy to term. Even when a mother cannot care for a child, he said, there are other ways in modern society for the child to be raised. "But in any case I hold that respect is due to any person who, perhaps after much reflection and suffering, in these extreme cases follows their conscience, even if the person decides to do something that I cannot approve," he said. The Espresso interview was conducted as a dialogue between Cardinal Martini and Italian bioethicist Ignazio Marino. In it, the cardinal touched on a number of other issues: -- The cardinal said he agreed with Marino that it appeared that individual human life began sometime after the joining of sperm and egg. In particular, Cardinal Martini said he agreed that a new individual did not seem to be present in a fertilized egg before the male and female nuclei had combined to form the new embryo's nuclei. That is an argument made by some scientists who are promoting new, more sophisticated forms of artificial insemination. Cardinal Martini said a more precise understanding of when individual human life begins could help overcome the church's opposition to every form of artificial insemination. -- The cardinal said the implantation of frozen embryos, so-called embryonic adoption, was preferable to simply letting the embryos perish -- even when the mothers are single. -- On the question of allowing single people to adopt children, the cardinal said adoption by married couples was generally preferable, but that he would not want to exclude the possibility for singles. It's a question of making the best choice for the child, he said.
Anonymous said... 24 November, 2010 16:16"where exactly has the Pope changed Catholic Teaching?"As of today, he has not done so.Rather, he is preparing the Faithful for the shocking statement that condoms may be used during certain situations.From Rorate Caeli to, well, everywhere, the following has somehow been forgotten...and this is the key to undertanding what the Holy Father has done.He did not made a gaffe. He knew exactly what he was doing.As I posted in a different message:http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0602330.htmVATICAN-CONDOMS April 24, 2006:Vatican preparing document on condom use and AIDS, official saysBy John ThavisCatholic News ServiceVATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI has asked a commission of scientific and theological experts to prepare a document on condom use and AIDS prevention, a Vatican official said. Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, head of the Pontifical Council for Health Care Ministry, said the document would focus, at least in part, on condom use by married couples when one spouse is infected. Cardinal Lozano was responding to questions in the wake of an interview by Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, retired archbishop of Milan, who said use of condoms can be the lesser evil in some situations. Cardinal Lozano spoke in an interview April 23 with the Rome newspaper La Repubblica.
"Protestant flirtation! Give me a break! They key words you used "properly construed" are exactly the problem. An ordinary Catholic like myself shouldn't have to construe anything that our Holy Father says. It should be clear. And his comments are not so clear....hence the DIN worldwide! I am free to disagree with the Pope when he expresses personal ideas and still remain completely Catholic. I disagree with the idea of a Pope giving "book interviews" They are not Magisterium and I am in no way obliged to swallow everything in them.Certainly you can disagree when he expresses his personal ideas. Here, however, his words clearly are consistent with the Magisterium. This is subtle, but not rocket science. "Properly construed" simply means that the faithful, whether liberal or conservative, should not misconstrue them to fit their own preconceived narratives. That is going on here just as much as, if not moreso than, it is going on in the liberal press.
Pope Benedict XVI is the only man on earth who can "clarify" — I'm beginning to despise that word — his condom-related remarks.We need desperately for the Holy Father to speak NOW on the matter.Now! Please, Holy Father. Please end the massive confusion!Enough of "a Vatican spokesman said today..."..."a Cardinal who met with the Pope said..."Only Pope Benedict XVI can speak on the issue.Should we be confident that a Papal statement is forthcoming?
"Perhaps some of you should read this before you crucify the Holy Father...By Fr. Fessio-"Let me get this straight: the Supreme Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on Earth has to have a priest do his damage control? His spin control? Oh for the days when popes were remote and silent, worshiped from afar. Familiarity with loquacity inevitably breeds contempt.
If only St. Theresa of Calcutta had abandoned her method of using real love to teach sinners to reform and had, instead, counsellec them to don condoms. How much better the world would be.P.K.T.P.
The first thing we need to ask about this forthcoming document is what authority it will bear. That is Step Number One.P.K.T.P.
For RR,Dear Sir or Madam,What "preconceived narrative" are you referring to? The point of my little comments were that I still don't understand WHY the Holy Father said what he said. It is now "out" that he knew his condom comments would cause controversy (pop over to Fr. Z's blog). Really, if this true, I am more worried than ever. Why in heaven's name would a Supreme Roman Pontiff want to create controversy in such a manner and with such a subject given the present world-wide climate on the matter? The mind boggles! No amount of spinning will convince me that what he said is fit for public consumption without misinterpretation taking over. And, frankly I'm deeply disturbed.... Barbara Italy
"Should we be confident that a Papal statement is forthcoming?"I beg for a Papal statement but doubt that one is forthcoming.That is true particularly if the following statement from "Vatican spokesman," the Rev. Federico Lombardi.By the way, is Rev. Lombardi's statement authentic? The confusion is momunental.From the St. Louis Post-DispatchWednesday, November 24, 2010:At a news conference Tuesday, the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said the pope had specifically told him on Monday that the issue was not procreation but disease prevention — regardless of the gender of the prostitute."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." Lombardi added that for Benedict, the heart of the matter was of "taking responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk to the life of the person with whom you are having a relationship.""This is if you're a woman, a man, or a transsexual," Lombardi said.
"From the St. Louis Post-DispatchWednesday, November 24, 2010:At a news conference Tuesday, the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said the pope had specifically told him on Monday that the issue was not procreation but disease prevention — regardless of the gender of the prostitute."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." Lombardi added that for Benedict, the heart of the matter was of "taking responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk to the life of the person with whom you are having a relationship.""This is if you're a woman, a man, or a transsexual," Lombardi said."Okay. The clarification has been made. The Pope has made known his intentions behind his comments.Lombardi also said that the Pope said he wanted to "provoke intense discussion."That's that.Tom
I suggest that bloggers avoid anything written by Fr. Fessio or his other Adoremus buddy, Fr. Harrison. They spend their days trying to turn a sow's ear into a purse.We don't need Fr. Fessio, and nor, apparently, does the Jesuit order. We can wait for the Pope's own document on this.As for the Pope's comments, I cannot see how they are heretical in any way. Heretical or wrong, no. Imprudent and foolish? Yes.Apparently, he wants intense discussion on this. Well, he certainly has achieved that.P.K.T.P.
"Apparently, he wants intense discussion on this. Well, he certainly has achieved that."What's the intense discussion supposed to accomplish? Who's allowed to contribute to this discussion? To whom will the Pope pay attention?Are we supposed to discuss the issue at parish meetings, in the press, on blogs, during Vatican-initiated meetings?Does the Pope know the sense of the Faithful on the matter of condoms?
"The first thing we need to ask about this forthcoming document is what authority it will bear."What forthcoming document?
On Fr. Z's blog, he's posted an explanation by Fr. Fessio, who says that the Pope said nothing new and hasn't changed a thing about using condoms.But it takes Fr. Fessio a lot of words and examples to make his point. And that always worries me because if it's not a simple "yes or no," then I sense that something isn't right.The Pope could end this in a few seconds by simply saying "yes, I'm saying there are times when it's ok to use condoms" or "no, never."Why can't we just get that very simple statement from the Vatican?Last year in Africa, the Pope stated again the Church's traditional teaching about condoms.Clear. Right to the point. Took just a few seconds to speak a couple of easy to understand sentences.No need for clarifications. No need for spokesmen.Why can't the Pope do the same thing immediately? It'll take him like 2 seconds to simply say "no, never" to condom use.And if someone would read Fr. Fessio's "clarification" posted on Fr. Z's blog, could you please explain to me what exactly is Fr. Fessio saying because I still don't understand his "clarification."
Please see John Vennari's commentary here:http://www.cfnews.org/b16bombshell.htm
I, too, am confused by the Pope's desire to kick-start an intense debate in regard to condoms.If Fathers Zuhlsdorf and Fessio, as examples, are correct that all Pope Benecict XVI did was uphold the Church's teaching regarding condoms, what exactly does the Pope wish us to discuss?
I feel badly about critizing Benedict XVI, after all he's still the Pope, and I am a sinner with many faults of my own but I guess my frustration at this apocalyptic times is getting to me.Lord have mercy on me and on all of us.
Thank you for the link to John Vennari's article. I recommend it, particularly the last paragraphs, really right to the point.
The best thing I've read on this topic is: http://sthughofcluny.org/2010/11/the-pope-condoms-and-traditionalism.html especially paragraphs 5&6. Great perspective, there. The devil hates and fears the One, Holy, Catholic Church. He has his useful idiots. Let us try to not be among them. Pray the Rosary, the most powerful weapon we have. We will win! Only She can help us now. Sweet Heart of Mary, help us!
Pandora's Box has already been opened by the liberals at the councils of the 1960s with Fr Ratzinger's committed assistance. He is always a pragmatic liberal modernsit. Therefore, there should be no surprise at this latest contentious statement. He claims he has not changed since; thus, there can be no room for disappointment.Moreover, with the new church so enmeshed in sexual perversion by a significant proportion of its presbyters and their complicit hierarchy we should also interpret his comment in the light of this darkness of clerical predation or "male prostitution".Randy Engel, Paul Likoudis et al. give us all the objective evidence we require. Personal empirical testimonial supplies the remainder if necessary. The post-conciliar church and its papacies are misguided, disorientated and unable to give the strength of leadership the chuch has need of today.
"Why can't we just get that very simple statement from the Vatican?"This is either a rhetorical question; based on ignorance of liberalism or sheer naivete.The Vatican is incapable of clarity since the Councils. Everything emanating from that place requires constant clarification because the modernist versions of truth are a perpetually moving target.
We do not need Fessio or Fr Z's blog to muddy the waters when we know full well that what has been stated in public is clearly out of step with consistent Roman Catholic teaching.
Thank you Rorate Caeli. I have just read Mr. Vennari's commentary, kindly linked by a poster. I must say it was like balm to my soul after the inner turmoil I experienced since the Holy Father's Bombshell. It helped me very much to set my own thoughts in better order. So, thank you so much, Mr. Vennari for such a clear presentation of why these comments by the Pope are creating such confusion. I'm not completely off the wall either in my reactions as some people have intimated.Nonetheless, my original question remains. WHY? Why did he say what he said knowing that it was going to be explosive? I don't buy the debate stuff. It doesn't make any sense.Barbara, ItalyP.S. A note about myself. I have always defended Our Holy Father. I love him. I was delighted at his election. Through his Summorum Pontificum I discovered the glory and wonder of the Old Rite and have never looked back..as it is at that Holy Mass I feel perfectly at home in Mother Church. I followed him on WEBCAM with tears in my eyes, throughout his historical visit to Scotland and England ... always trying to be a loyal, faithful and informed Catholic this "bombshell" really has shaken me...what's next?
" WHY? Why did he say what he said knowing that it was going to be explosive?"If you "love" him less than you state then you will understand who he really is much better. He is not the person you imagine. His career is rooted in controversy and his ideology is liberal. He is close to a carbon copy of his predecessor in more ways than one. Moreover, he is not remotely traditional.
For LeonG,Thank you for your response."If you "love" him less than you state then you will understand who he really is much better. He is not the person you imagine."Is he not still the Vicar of Christ? My "love" is not sentimental...but is based on this reality. You are right,though, I do not really know him...but Signore LeonG, you sound as if you know everything about him...that, for me,is a bit worrying too. I've had enough. Better take myself to Mass and prayer...Our Lord is in charge of his Church.Shall pray for us all! Thank you, again Rorate Caeli for putting up with me for the last 2 days.Barbara, Italy
The Church cannot be led into error - so calm down everyone and have some faith.
Dear Leon and Barbara,The issue is not love or knowledge of the Holy Father.We are all obliged to love him, and we three at least don't know him at all.Rather, the issue is the extent to which we can or must believe what he tells us, and do what he says.That is the elephant in the room, whose existence is so often ignored or denied.But it is evident from this string that this may be starting to change.
OK guys I suggest that instead of reading Light of the World read Windswept House: A Vatican Novel by Malachi Martin it makes you understand of who is behind the state of the Church and it sure explains the book Light of the World.
As for the Pope's comments, I cannot see how they are heretical in any way. Heretical or wrong, no. Imprudent and foolish? Yes.Precisely. Disastrously imprudent and foolish.
What's next, abortion justified when minors are abused, a la Fisichella?, same sex marriage?Fasten your seat-belts!C.M.
As for the Pope's comments, I cannot see how they are heretical in any way. Heretical or wrong, no. Imprudent and foolish? Yes.Not heretical, but imprudent and foolish -- like Vatican II all over again. Was this "imprudent" act done in error?
P.K.T.P. (and Jordanes):Heretical or wrong: noimprudent and foolish: yesAmen!But P.K.T.P., re the new-formulated Good-Friday-Prayer:It´s no solution to pray the correct/good prayer privately and silently while the priest uses the deformated new version.Liturgy is an official and public act and prayer - your private citation does not change it or correct it.And as I said from the beginning of the debate - the text of the prayer itselfe is and was clear enough to see that it prays only for the Jews at the very end of time and not for conversion here and now.But now this is absolutely clear.(See also my comments re that under the resp. thread here on Rorate -- or on wdtprs under my real name ;-)Hoping that also Fr. Michael Mary and some FSSPers now acknowledge that the new formulation is deficient and a result of an unbearable non-missionary new-church-spirit ---and therefore UNACCEPTABLE- and that they follow the example of the FSSPX!
Love is not a homogeneous phenomenon.It is perfectly feasible to aptly criticise a modernist pope who provokes contention and public scandal surrounding his actions and at the same time pray for his salvation which indicates charitable love. To claim we must love a pope and desist from criticism is a sheer absurdity.Personally speaking, it would appear to me ultimately more germane to pray that Almighty God sends us a very good wise honest stout-hearted traditional pope to succeed this one whose papacy is not far from being an abject failure. Recent occurrences suggest this as much as the many others that have tarred and feathered his career.
Things are even worse than I thought in the church if Catholics have to look to the John Vennaries of the world to put the minds of Catholics at ease.Delphina
LeonGI couldn't have said that better. Thank you.
Delphina and Leon: Since you don't specify as to what of Mr. Vennari's article you object, I will say that at least he made the point that nothing said by the Pope in this interview is binding on the consciences of Catholics. As to the "living magisterium", to which I am constantly warned that I must adhere, I think I'll just wait for this one to die out and await another.
How little the magesterium is understood these days. Moreover, my comments have nothing to do with Vennari's article which I have not read and have no intention of so doing.
Dear Mr. LeonG,Complimenti!Your exquisite wit and grace ooze from every word you write.You must be winning countless souls for Our Blessed Lord.Barbara, Italy
Anon :53You miss my point completely. When Pius XII was the Vicar of Christ, I didn't have to resort to lay writers to explain to me what the pope really did or didn't mean.Delphina
Anon :53 said: Delphina & LeonG, I apologize for my misapprehension. I enjoy both your posts very much. We are of like minds on the great issues which confront our Holy Church. God bless us all. Mary help us.
Barbara in Italy.A compliment from that country is a compliment indeed. Personally, for me Italy is the Holy Land and Rome is the centre of civilisation. Without good humour what is this life when we are abandoned by our shepherds; Rome effectively makes a conciliar denunciation of being the divinely mandated centre for Christendom and her revolutionary leaders attempt to convince us that since the 1960s it is just business as usual. For light they have exchanged darkness and for Roman Catholicism they have handed us over to protestantism.What can we do without good wit and trenchant criticism of such buffoonery.
PRAYFORTHE POPEThe condumConundrumIn the LightOf The WorldCould leave one’sFaith CompletelyUnfurledBut the LightOf the worldHis BloodHe did shedFor even the PopeWho saidWhat heSaidAnd even The men And ladies Of nightThat the PopeDid addressBeing everPoliteForgettingTo say“Go and sinNo more”Damning MisguidedDamningThe whoreBut the LightOf the worldHis BloodHe did shedPray for the PopeWho saidWhat heSaid!
"Rome effectively makes a conciliar denunciation of being the divinely mandated centre for Christendom..."I don't think so.From Pope John Paul II's Encyclical Ut Unum Sint, May 25, 1995:"The Catholic Church is conscious that she has preserved the ministry of the Successor of the Apostle Peter, the Bishop of Rome, whom God established as her "perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity..."The Catholic Church, both in her praxis and in her solemn documents, holds that the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is — in God's plan — an essential requisite of full and visible communion."
Our Blessed Lady of Fatima referred to Rome as a city half in ruins. She certainly must have been referring to the Rome of the post-conciliar period. How could popes who believe in the Eternal City as being the centre of the church actually permit such a lamentable state of affairs? It is utterly disgraceful.
Long Skirts:EXCELLENT, thanks!!!!
So, I guess the Consecration of Russia is out of the question.
Post a Comment