Rorate Caeli

Missing him

Yes, there was some good in the Wojtylian years - and one example was the professional and steady manner in which the Holy See Press Office and L'Osservatore Romano were guided under the leadership of Joaquín Navarro-Valls, M.D, and Mario Agnes. After the Recife Affair, and the new rubber controversy - both of which were fed by the Press Office/OR -, one can affirm with certainty that the Lombardi-Vian team (and Fisichella, who, NOT COINCIDENTALLY, was the man responsible for the Recife affair and the main ecclesiastical authority in the press conference of presentation of "Light of the World") have as their main concern and as their "editorial line ... to incite doubt on moral matters", as Christine Vollmer affirmed.

One would never have seen matters of life and death, and of spiritual life and death, treated so lightly in the days of Navarro-Valls and Mario Agnes. It is a pity that the Pope has decided to entrust the public communications of the Holy See to (1) a Liberal Jesuit (prostituto-prostituta, Tweedledum and Tweedledee), (2) an agitprop "journalist" who still misses the post-Conciliar years under the great Montini (too bad he got one thing wrong in Humanae Vitae - not that we can't fix this!), and (3) their friend the pro-abortion-in-some-cases Archbishop-for-the-new-evangelization.

Well, at least they are selling lots of books!

56 comments:

Xavier Rynne said...

Funny and refreshing. Yes Lombardi needs to be cashiered, along with the head of the newspaper. But Ratzinger is too nice and too old, and they probably know it. Time for the laity to take these people on.

Julie said...

Thanks, New Catholic, for the subtle sidewinder missile. I so much appreciate your valuable insights.

Looking forward to hearing the ensuing discussion. The Rorate commenting crew has the sharpest, shrewdest analysts on the internet, and I don't like to form my opinions on anything without consulting here first.

Anonymous said...

The Holy Father should pick up the phone, call the Prelate of Opus Dei, and find another numerary to run his press office.

Now.

Christopher J. Paulitz said...

Although I will never again get into politics or political public relations, I'd pick up and move my family in a heartbeat if the Holy Father would allow me to run the Vatican press office!

I actually did some nominal looking into this before I left Capitol Hill and, well, let's say no one was very interested in me.

While I could never change the Vatican culture, making a drastic turnaround in that press office would take all of 24 hours.

Holy Father, you may either text me on my cell or direct message me on Twitter.

What's the Vatican 401k and deferred comp plan look like?

New Catholic said...

Ah! But would you sell as many books in Italy?!

Christopher J. Paulitz said...

No. I'd probably be beaten by old liberal women with salami then killed by the Freemasons.

But book sales certainly wouldn't flurish under me like they are under Lombardi.

Anonymous said...

Why such confusion? Vatican spokesman made it very clear that Pope Benedict XVI did not approve the use of condoms in any circumstances.

I also direct you to Father John Zuhlsdorf's blog to read the following article written by Father Fessio.

Father Fessio, as did Father Zuhlsdorf, made it very clear that the Pope did not change any teaching related to the use of condoms.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/11/fr-fessio-on-what-pope-benedict-really-said-useful-analogy-alert/

Here is an excerpt from that article.

"Did the Pope “justify” condom use in some circumstances?

"No.

"And there was absolutely no change in Church teaching either.

"Not only because an interview by the Pope does not constitute Church teaching, but because nothing that he said differs from previous Church teaching."
---------------------------

That is perfectly clear.

Read Father Zuhlsdorf's blog as he (and Father Fessio) make it perfectly clear that the Pope did not justify the use of a condom in any circumstance.

Anonymous said...

Some people have written that Federico Lombardi claimed that Pope Benedict XVI desired to "kick-start" a debate in regard to condoms.

That is incorrect.

Below is an excerpt from an Associated Press article.

It was a "senior Vatican official" who claimed that he "believed" that the Pope "wanted to kick-start the debate."

Said Vatican official spoke "on the condition of anonymity."

Again, nobody at a Vatican press conference claimed that the Pope wanted to kick-start a debate on condoms.

Everybody needs to clam down.


Pope seeks to start debate on condoms and AIDS
(AP)

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Benedict XVI sought to "kick-start a debate" when he said some condom use may be justified, Vatican insiders say, raising hopes the church may be starting to back away from a complete ban and allow condoms to play a role in the battle against AIDS.

One senior Vatican official said Monday he believed the pope just "wanted to kick-start the debate."

He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Christopher J. Paulitz said...

So then the pope was accidentally confusing Catholics on contraception and not purposefully?

Things are so bad right now, I'd actually take that as progress.

John McFarland said...

New Catholic,

Why your distaste for "the Wojtylian years"?

You must know that there isn't a dime's worth of difference in basic orientation s between Papa Wojtyla and Papa Ratzinger -- as the Holy Father has indicated quite clearly on more than one occasion.

So why the difference in attitude towards the two -- a difference that is by no means peculiar to you. Indeed, it seems almost universal among Benedictine traditionalists: to embrace Benedict is to despise John Paul.

New Catholic said...

Two words, McFarland: Summorum Pontificum.

Anonymous said...

"You must know that there isn't a dime's worth of difference in basic orientation s between Papa Wojtyla and Papa Ratzinger -- as the Holy Father has indicated quite clearly on more than one occasion."

Well said! It was so tiresome back when people used to lament the former Papal Master of Ceremonies, Piero Marini, and his liturgical high jinks, poor JPII being "forced" to endure such silly crypto blasphemies! Well the Pope is the Pope and he has way too many clergy surrounding him in Rome to have a paucity of candidates for the important papal positions. Popes,regardless of how "old and kind" they happen to be, choose who they want, people who please them. This mess, this buck, stops squarely with the Supreme August Pontiff and, like his four predecessors, he is now a monumental disappointment. Perhaps a fountain should be erected in his honor.

xavier rynne said...

There is just no way the pope said his comment applied to transsexuals. No way.

Anonymous said...

Dear Rorate Caeli Blog,

May I ask as to why, when the craziness broke surrounding the Pope and his condoms-related statements found in Peter Seewald's new book, that you did not simply post a link to Father Zuhlsdorf's WDTPRS blog, where Father explained the following?:

1. The Pope did not justify the use of condoms under any circumstances.

2. The Pope did not change any teaching that may pertain to condoms.

Father Zuhlsdorf also posted Father Fessio's article in which Father Fessio made it clear that the Pope did not justify the use of condoms.

The Rorate Caeli blog could have directed its readers to the above posts on Father Zuhlsdorf's blog.

Thank you.

Anthony

Anonymous said...

"So then the pope was accidentally confusing Catholics on contraception and not purposefully?"

Many news media types and Catholic traditionalists confused Catholics in regard to the Pope's remarks.

Such priests as Zuhlsdorf and Fessio informed Catholics and, for that matter, the world, immediately that the Pope did not justify the use of condoms.

Anybody who read, for example, Fr. Zuhlsdorf's blog, would have known the truth immediately.

Anthony

JWY said...

Well said, NC!

Anonymous said...

I don't understand why the Pope doesn't just call those idiots at L'Osservatore Romano and say "You're Fired!"

Christopher J. Paulitz said...

Anthony, I can't speak for New Catholic, and this is his blog.

As a contributor, I can tell you that I simply don't agree with those posting apologetics on what the Holy Father said.

To give any leeway that using artificial contraception can in any way be acceptable, or better than an alternative, opens up a deeply troubling can of worms.

All the Holy Father had to say was that having sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin and a moral evil. So is the use of artifical contraception. Both lead one's soul to a path to Hell.

But that's not what he said. He tried to placate the liberals and be loved by all. And in doing so has set the pro-life movement back generations.

It wasn't posted because, unlike most neocons, I'm not ready to always suspend disbelief, and pretend I didn't just hear or see what I thought I heard and saw.

David Joyce said...

Anthony, I would rather take Father Boyle's analysis:

http://caritasveritas.blogspot.com/2010/11/did-pope-say-its-okay-to-use-condoms.html

Fr. Boyle is hardly a rad-trad, but he is facing the situation in a much more honest way, imo, than others trying to square the circle. As John Vennari said on cfnews.org: "The lesser of two evils is a Protestant concept, not Catholic. It has no place in the history of Catholic moral teaching. We cannot choose the lesser of two evils because the lesser evil is still evil, and evil can never be the direct object of our will."

The Holy See's Press Office have certain created tremors that have rocked the media around the world, but the problem is at the episcentre - the Pope's own words. He is the successor of St. Peter, but he consciously participating in the debate like the Cardinal Ratzinger theologian of old.

gustav said...

The lesser of two evils is a Protestant concept, not Catholic. It has no place in the history of Catholic moral teaching.

Anyone who has read any manuals of Catholic moral theology will know this is utter drivel. St Alphonsus, on the permissibility of counselling a lesser evil to one intent on a greater evil, is instructive.

Anonymous said...

We need a pius xiii. the wolves are circling and we have a professor instead of a warrior in the middle

Anonymous said...

"We need a pius xiii."

I agree, there is a need for a saintly, and given this world, a martyr pontiff, a Pius XIII or Gregory XVI or Urban IX, who uncompromisingly subordinates all things to the cause of Christ and his church and does not care about the mind of the world. No dialogue with infidels but zealous effort to convert them to truth rather than feel happy to find a minimum compomise which per se neglects truth.

Anonymous said...

In response to the claim that Federico Lombardi did not say that the Pope wished to spark a debate that pertained to condoms:
----------------------------

The Pope, condoms and the Vatican's PR travesty
National Post (blog) - ‎7 hours ago‎

On Tuesday, though, Fr. Lombardi told Associated Press that the pope knew his comments would provoke debate. “He did it because he believed that it was a ...
--------------------------------

BusinessWeek - Victor L. Simpson, Nicole Winfield - ‎Nov 23, 2010‎

Lombardi said Benedict knew full well that his comments would provoke intense debate.

Conservative Catholics have been trying to minimize what he said since.
----------------------------

Jakarta Post - ‎Nov 23, 2010‎

Federico Lombardi said Benedict knew full well that his new comments would provoke intense debate.
----------------------------

Omaha World-Herald - Christopher Burbach - ‎Nov 23, 2010‎

Lombardi said Benedict knew his comments would provoke debate
----------------------------

Philippine Headline News - ‎Nov 23, 2010‎

Federico Lombardi said Benedict knew full well that his new comments would provoke intense debate.

Anonymous said...

Does Father Zuhlsdorf and/or Father Fessio trump Father James Martin's statements?

Who to believe?

National Post: "Father James Martin, an American Catholic commentator and writer, had the courage this week to state what everyone else appeared to be dodging:

“It’s the first admission from a pope that a condom can be used for a good intention,” Fr. Martin told the National Post.

“Just a few years ago, the Vatican would have rejected these ideas outright, even though they had great currency among theologians.

"Clearly, something has changed.”

Anonymous said...

Sydney Morning Herald
Barney Zwartz
November 25, 2010

THE Vatican has confirmed that Pope Benedict has approved a historic shift to allow condoms to avoid AIDS - while carefully painting it as no change at all.

In a typical Vatican clarification that left both conservatives and progressives convinced they were correct, a spokesman, Federico Lombardi, said that the Pope did mean to say that someone with AIDS should use condoms to prevent infection, whether "man or woman or transsexual".

But he said the Pope's "reasoning certainly cannot be defined as a revolutionary shift", that he still taught abstinence and fidelity as better than condoms, which were "not a real or moral solution".

But because Pope Benedict used the example of a male prostitute, conservative Catholics denied that it applied outside homosexual sex.

However, in Italian the example was of a female prostitute.

Father Lombardi said because of the confusion he asked the Pope to clarify.

The Pope told him the critical point was for someone with AIDS to take "into consideration the life of another with whom you have a relationship".

He said several moral theologians had held similar positions - without saying they had been ruthlessly silenced - "however it is true that until now we had not heard them expressed with such clarity from the mouth of a pope".

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"May I ask as to why, when the craziness broke surrounding the Pope and his condoms-related statements found in Peter Seewald's new book, that you did not simply post a link to Father Zuhlsdorf's WDTPRS blog, where Father explained the following?"

I think that a lot of the commentators who are now trying to defend the Pope are missing the point.

For so many years, pro-life movements all over the world have strenuously worked to debunk all of the myths in favor of the use of condoms, not the least the idea that condoms are an effective means of stopping the spread of AIDS. Now, all of a sudden comes a Pope who, while he may not have "changed Church teaching" or "justified the use of condoms", still manages to mention it in a manner that will be read 99 out of 100 times as conceding that condoms afford protection from HIV, no matter how awkwardly phrased.


With those few words, years and years of hard work have gone down the drain! One thing for sure, those words have smashed countless pro-life efforts all over the world. And the condom manufacturers are laughing so hard that they can be heard in the pits of hell!

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"He said several moral theologians had held similar positions - without saying they had been ruthlessly silenced - "however it is true that until now we had not heard them expressed with such clarity from the mouth of a pope"."

Precisely. This is what has changed. The Pope now appears to endorse a theological opinion that, prior to November 21, 2010, was denounced as dangerous if not outright heterodox by not a few Catholics.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"You must know that there isn't a dime's worth of difference in basic orientation s between Papa Wojtyla and Papa Ratzinger -- as the Holy Father has indicated quite clearly on more than one occasion.

So why the difference in attitude towards the two -- a difference that is by no means peculiar to you."

I suggest, Mr. McFarland, that you should pose these questions to Msgr. Bernard Fellay and Fr. Franz Schmidberger.

Perhaps you might want to reread the following:

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/01/new-fellay-interview-division-will-be.html

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/02/schmidberger-interview.html

Anonymous said...

When the Holy Father started his office as Pope he asked that we pray for him, to protect him from the wolves. Wolves indeed there are aplenty but not until recently do I sometimes wonder if the Pope is behaving as a hirling? I pray he does not run away and leave us in peril.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

New Catholic:

I'll add another name to those who are missed: Alfonso Lopez Cardinal Trujillo, one of the greatest crusaders ever against the use of condoms. (He was also a model of episcopal resistance to heresy and dissent -- as Fr. Paul Marx mentioned in his autobiography, Cardinal Trujillo, as Archbishop of Medellin, purged the works of all dissident theologians from his seminary's library.)

His successor as head of the Pontifical Council for the Family, Ennio Cardinal Antonelli, has been strangely silent in the current controversy, as in previous ones (the Recife affair, for instance).

Anonymous said...

I realize that Mr. Carlos Antonio Papad directed the following to somebody else:

"Perhaps you might want to reread the following:

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/02/schmidberger-interview.html

But I was curious, went to that link and stopped reading as soon as I saw the following:

Father Franz Schmidberger: “The Church has entered calmer waters.”

Wow! Calmer waters?

Mr. Palad, you are the person who also posted the following in regard to the Pope:

"With those few words, years and years of hard work have gone down the drain! One thing for sure, those words have smashed countless pro-life efforts all over the world."

Clamer waters?

Joe

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

Joe:

Don't be a fool. The last few days have been horrible and I don't make any secret of my opinion of the Pope's words on condoms, but these neither destroy nor negate Summorum Pontificum, the lifting of the 1988 excommunications, Anglicanorum Coetibus, the attempts by the Pope (no matter how limited or tentative) to restore some measure of the sacred to the liturgy... and many other things.

Anonymous said...

"With those few words, years and years of hard work have gone down the drain! One thing for sure, those words have smashed countless pro-life efforts all over the world."

Wrong. No way.

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=8375

Cardinal Raymond Burke in an interview with the National Catholic Register. The prefect of the Apostolic Signatura stated:

"I don’t see any change in the Church’s teaching.

"But in no way does it mean that prostitution is morally acceptable, nor does it mean that the use of condoms is morally acceptable.

"And when he says that it could be a first step in a movement toward a different, more human way of living sexuality, that doesn’t mean in any sense that he’s saying the use of condoms is a good thing."

David Joyce said...

Anyone who has read any manuals of Catholic moral theology will know this is utter drivel. St Alphonsus, on the permissibility of counselling a lesser evil to one intent on a greater evil, is instructive.

But surely this is only when the choice is between two evils - a larger one, and a lesser one. Then we should obviously choose the lesser one. Defending one's life (or one's family, or nation) is a good example. However, the example the Pope speculated on is not the same - there is not simply a choice between evils, but there is also the availability of an option that is wholly good: the prostitute (or whoever) can choose against the evil act, rather than (one could say) compound the situation with the use of contraception.

Is that not a valid distinction, so that (as Vennari said), the evil is not then "the direct object of our will", but rather the good that can come out of it? What is the direct object of the prostitute's will in this case? Is it not simply for the continuation of his sinful lifestyle? Clearly I am failing to appreciate, in writings of the Pope, how this can be seen as any kind of progress.

Anonymous said...

Regardless of all the mis-representation of what the Holy Father said about condoms...
The last thing the Holy Father needs is another Opie in the press office.
Thank God the days of Opie dominance in the Vatican are history.

Brian said...

Christopher J. Paulitz said: He tried to placate the liberals and be loved by all.

A more parsimonious explanation could be that he, himself, is a liberal.

Carlos Antonio Palad said: Now, all of a sudden comes a Pope who, while he may not have "changed Church teaching" or "justified the use of condoms", still manages to mention it in a manner that will be read 99 out of 100 times as conceding that condoms afford protection from HIV, no matter how awkwardly phrased.

Well said.

If the Holy Father managed to do that on purpose, what are we to think?

Anonymous said...

"Regardless of all the mis-representation of what the Holy Father said about condoms...
The last thing the Holy Father needs is another Opie in the press office."

Yes, well, aside from your puerile name-calling (something that condems itself), I think JPII was served excellently by his press secretary for many, many years.

Anonymous said...

"Lombardi is a good man, but he's copiously inadequate to run the Vatican Press Office. The man has no media sophistication and practical genius to use this powerful machinery to aid and protect the Holy Father's mission. More often than not, he has dropped the ball disastrously on a PR and Communications level. The gaffes we've had in recent years would never have happened under Joaquin Navarro-Valls, who as a lay professional, knew how better to negotiate the treacherous currents of the secular media for the glory of God. Instead of preventative measures or pro-active salvos, Lombardi's press services are mostly applied to trying to put out fires after an attack, and often with quite clumsy and archaic responses too.

Part of JP2's success in nullifying much media hostility and garnering a strong cohesive image even when he defended unpopular Catholic ideas, was due in no small part to the effectiveness of Navarro-Valls' practical genius.

In appointing an old Jesuit hat like Lombardi to the post, the Holy Father has fallen into the old curial trap of promoting senior clergymen over truly qualified candidates, whether they be lay or religious Catholics. For the sake of the papal office and the universal church, I pray that they change the Vatican Press Director for a start. Get a good orthodox Catholic professional who at least has the umption to manipulate the secular media to the Church's advantage. Navarro-Valls did it for most of JP2's reign. It can be done."

from a poster on Firstthings blog.

Well said, and true.

Anonymous said...

Certain commentators have placed the following spin on the Pope's remarks regarding condoms:

A criminal has used loaded guns during his commissions of crimes.

The criminal then takes a "step" toward more "humanized" commissions of crimes by using guns that aren't loaded.

Victims believed that the criminals guns were loaded but as they were not, the criminal lacked the ability to have wounded or killed his victims.

Therefore, the criminal has supposedly taken a step the right direction.
--------------------------------

But consider the following:

Has the criminal who used unloaded guns actually developed a "more humanized" understanding of his actions?

To begin, when a person (or persons) faces a gun, he or she could literally have a heart attack.

He or she could be in possession of concealed guns or other weapons that in just a couple of seconds could be used in deadly fashion against the criminal.

Unware that the criminal's gun is unloaded, a would-be victim could turn the tables upon the criminal.

The criminal could brandish his unloaded gun at people only to have a (or several) would-be victim make a desperate escape attempt.

The frightened victim could, for example, make a desperate escape attempt by crashing through a window.

It is possibe that said victim could sustain serious, if not fatal, injuries during the escape attempt.

A criminal carjacker, for example, attempts a "more "humanized approach by using an unloaded gun to a force a driver from his or her car.

The driver, in great fear, then bolts into traffic.

Said victim could be injured badly, killed, or cause a car (or cars) to swerve that, in turn, injures or kills innocent pedestrians and/or motorists.

Sorry, but the "more humanized" criminal example does not make sense to me.

Tom

Anonymous said...

I find it impossible to believe that His Holiness is unware that news has spread around the world that he believes that condoms may be used in certain circumstances.

Fathers Zuhlsdorf and Fessio offered their interpretations of the Holy Father's remarks in question.

Their opinions don't speak for many Catholic priests and Catholic "AIDS workers" who have been quoted in worldwide news articles as having insisted that the Pope believes that condoms may be used in circumstances.

His Holiness must speak publicly upon this issue — immediately; this Sunday at the latest.

He cannot speak through Federico Lombardi, a Cardinal or anybody else.

His Holiness must speak himself.

Does he not undertand that millions of shocked and confused orthodox Catholics have pleaded with him to speak to the Church and world on the controversy in question.

Should His Holiness fail to speak, fail to offer an easy-to-understand "yea" or "nay" as to his remarks, then I can only believe that the overwhelming public opinion, that he believes that condoms may be used in certain circumstances, is the correct opinion.

Please, please Your Holiness, please set the record straight.

Please!

Jamie

Anonymous said...

"Yes, well, aside from your puerile name-calling (something that condems itself), I think JPII was served excellently by his press secretary for many, many
years."

Name calling ? I think 'Opie' s an affectionate term for those suffering from Opus Dei ism !
Yes, JPII was served excellently by his press secretary for many, many years - JPII was a huge fan of Opus Dei...and they, the Opies were huge fans of JPII. They had not progressed at all under Paul VI.

Anonymous said...

No offense taken, as it seems no offense was intended.

Brian Kopp said...

From a recent AP article, Conservatives at odds with Vatican over condoms,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_rel_pope_condoms_conservatives

"Germain Grisez, a prominent moral theologian who advises bishops, said that promoting condoms as protection against disease would be "pernicious" because it assumes a person does not have the capacity to make good, moral choices. He lamented that the pope's comments "can be — and are being — misused to sow doubt about Catholic teaching."

"Many of Jesus' own sayings were misused, and he no doubt foresaw that they would be misused. But he nevertheless said what he thought would lead to salvation those who were open to his teaching," Grisez wrote in an e-mail. "I assume that Pope Benedict's intention in speaking out as he does is similar to Jesus' intention. But Benedict's judgment about what to say may not be as sound as Jesus' judgment was." "

John McFarland said...

Mr. Palad,

I am quite familiar with the interviews you cite, and many others.

I think that their sum and substance is that the Holy Father would like to set things right, but that he continues to embrace Vatican II, and so...

For obvious reasons, the SSPX is being diplomatic, and giving the Holy Father the benefit of the doubt.

Meanwhile, the November issue of The Angelus includes a piece by a French traditional Dominican on the Summa that recalls Cardinal Ratzinger's 1996 Guadalajara lecture in which he either denied that the existence of God can be proved by reason, or came within a millimicrometer of doing so.

Those not part of the SSPX leadership do not have to be so diplomatic.

Anonymous said...

Yes, let’s blame the messengers for the message!

I thought with great power came great responsibility.

But I guess it’s just a matter of spin. If the pope’s condom travesty had been properly spun by his PR people, all would be well!

Anonymous said...

http://www.nola.com/religion/index.ssf/2010/11/new_orleans_archbishop_says_catholic_church_still_views_condoms_as_birth_control_as_immoral.html

November 26, 2010

The Times-Picayune

Archbishop Gregory Aymond of New Orleans, Louisiana:

Archbishop Gregory Aymond is sure of this: The pope 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 news article then wondered whether Pope Benedict XVI gestured 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.
--------------------------------

I wonder what Fathers Zhulsdorf and Fessio have to say in regard to Archbishop Aymond's interpretation of the Pope's remarks?

Finally, the news article offered the following:

"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 situation remains confused. Archbishops, priests and moral theologians have offered various interpretations as to the Holy Father's remarks.

The news media cannot be blamed for that.

The reality is that nonbody...NOBODY...is certain as to the Holy Father's meaning...in fact, is His Holiness even sure as to the meaning of his confusion remarks?

The bottom line is that only via a clear public statement himself can Pope Benedict XVI end the massive confusion that surrounds his remarks.*******

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

Anonymous of November 26, 10:11:

Apples and oranges.

Cardinal Burke may be right, but his interpretation doesn't change the fact that the pope's words are now being used to relentlessly and aggressively promote condoms. Or are you one of those who think that reality is magically changed whenever a Vatican official tells us that things are Not Really As Bad As They Seem?

Anonymous said...

"Cardinal Burke may be right, but his interpretation doesn't change the fact that the pope's words are now being used to relentlessly and aggressively promote condoms."

If you're correct, then what do you believe is the solution to "the fact that the pope's words are now being used to relentlessly and aggressively promote condoms"?

Mar said...

Here's one example of the Pope's words being used to relentlessly and aggressively promote condoms. Redentor A. de la Rosa who teaches 'Philosophy subjects in a University' in Davao City in the Philippines has a website called "Catholic Position - Explaining the Catholic faith...".

Commenting on Dr. Janet Smith's article (What does the Holy Father really say about condoms in the new book?) he says that condom use among prostitutes has always been part of the official teaching of the Catholic Church. He says that the unequivocal message of Pope Benedict is that prostitutes who use condoms are doing so out of moral responsibility. He is "very thankful that the Pope has already spoken!"

On his website Redentor has an article (Why P-Noy should go on with his Reproductive Health goals?) where he justifies his position. In answer to some
commentators who accuse him of misrepresenting the teachings of the Church and who urge him not to speak in the name of the Church he refers to the writings of Fr. Martin Rhonheimer in order to back up his claims, as follows.

Quote - May I suggest therefore that you first read the work of Martin Rhonheimer (a Swiss academic philosopher and a priest of the Catholic personal prelature Opus Dei. He currently teaches at the Opus Dei-affiliated Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome). The title of his book is "Natural Law and Practical Reason: A Thomist View of Moral Autonomy". Fordham University Press, 2000, Translation of the original
German "Natur als Grundlage der Moral" Or for preliminary reading, please read his article, published in "The Tablet:The International Catholic Weekly". - End quote.

Mar said...

Smith's article:
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=
220:pope-benedict-on-condoms-in-qlight-of-the-worldq&catid=53:cwr2010&Itemid=70

de la Rosa's article:
http://catholicposition.blogspot.com/2010/10/why-p-noy-should-go-on-with-his.html

Rhonheimer's article:
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/2284

John Smeaton, director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) - the first pro-life organisation in the world, established on 11th January 1967 - certainly thinks that the Pope's words will be used to relentlessly and aggressively
promote condoms.

Smeaton's article:
http://spuc-director.blogspot.com/2010/11/i-address-pope-benedict-in-my-speech-in.html

Anonymous said...

Is that "cat" out of the bag?

Is any hope to convince more than a relatively few Catholics, let alone non-Catholics, to adhere to the Church's teachings in regard to the following completely pointless?

Is the Catholic pro-life movement on the way to near-extinction?

The damage is monumental.

THE POPE MUST ISSUE A CLEAR STATEMENT THIS VERY DAY!!!!!!!

Please read the following from the Albany Times Union newspaper.

*******"We're in a new world," says the Rev. Jon Fuller of Boston, a Jesuit priest and a doctor specializing in AIDS, in sentiments that carry not a whiff of overstatement.

The Pope's message, he says, is that "you cannot anymore raise the objection that any use of the condom is an intrinsic evil."*******

http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/A-papal-shift-836220.php

Albany Times Union

A papal shift

Published: 12:00 a.m., Sunday, November 28, 2010

Last week seems destined to be remembered as a momentous one in the Roman Catholic Church's long history.

There was Pope Benedict XVI, saying what the the Vatican should have decreed decades ago, that the moral urgency to more aggressively confront AIDS requires reconsideration of the church's ban on condoms.

For that, the Pope has invited both the wrath of more conservative Catholics horrified at even a subtle shift in the church's policy and the skepticism of those who think the ban on artificial birth control needs to be lifted altogether.

It's neither unfair nor unreasonable to challenge the Pope and the rest of the church hierarchy over how many lives might have been saved, especially in Africa and elsewhere in the Third World, if the church had recognized how condoms could prevent the spread of AIDS when it first became a crisis.

But neither is it unnatural nor unrealistic to see such evolution as a sign of hope and promise in a church of more than a billion people.

*******"We're in a new world," says the Rev. Jon Fuller of Boston, a Jesuit priest and a doctor specializing in AIDS, in sentiments that carry not a whiff of overstatement.*******

*******The Pope's message, he says, is that "you cannot anymore raise the objection that any use of the condom is an intrinsic evil."*******

The old world, one that had been inhabited by the Pope himself, was not an especially enlightened one.

In 1987, the Pope -- then known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger -- was among those who denounced a committee of American bishops for so much as suggesting that AIDS-prevention programs could include information on condoms.

Just a year ago, the Pope said that condoms were exacerbating the HIV crisis, not fighting it.

How can anyone not be encouraged that the Pope now has a decidedly different view?

The use of condoms by those with HIV or AIDS, the Pope says, can be "a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility."

Yet the defectors persist.

One moral theologian, Dr. John Haas of the National Catholic Bioethics Center and the Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life, acknowledges lobbying the publisher of a book of interviews with the Pope, "Light of the World," not to include such potentially explosive views.

That's lamentable.

If there's to be a debate on such an important matter, let it reflect the view of Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, president of the nation's Catholic bishops, on the church's overall future.

"We need to recover our vigor," Archbishop Dolan says.

"Then we can be of better service to the world and to our culture."

A more refined and less rigid view of AIDS prevention would bring just that.

The issue:

The leader of the Catholic church has a new view on the use of condoms.

The Stakes:

His reconsideration brings a sense of hope.

Anonymous said...

"...the pope's words are now being used to relentlessly and aggressively promote condoms."

Sunday, November 28, 2010

John M. Haas, president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia:

"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."

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."

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.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

Anonymous of November 28, 08:34

People like you just don't get it. We're not talking about the actual meaning or intent of the Pope when he uttered those fateful words. We are talking about what those words are being USED for, regardless of the Pope's actual meaning.

I never ceased to be amazed at those Catholics who think that reality doesn't matter as long as nice words to the contrary can be found in some Vatican document or papal / Curial talk...

Anonymous said...

"We are talking about what those words are being USED for, regardless of the Pope's actual meaning."

What words could they possiby have used? The following words?

The church "does not regard it as a real or moral solution".

"We cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms."

"It is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection."

Anonymous said...

Forget about the Pope speak on his to end the massive confusion...from Fr. Z's blog:

Vatican officials said the pope simply wanted to “kick-start a debate” on the topic.

“This pope gave this interview,” Monsignor Jacques Suaudeau, an expert on the Vatican’s bioethics advisory board, told The Associated Press.

“He was not foolish. It was intentional.

"He thought that this was a way of bringing up many questions.

"Why? Because it’s true that the church sometimes has not been too clear.”

Whether there will be greater clarity now, or more confusion, may depend on what the pope says next, if anything.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"What words could they possibly have used? The following words?"

Don't be silly. You know as well as I do just what words were actually used.