20 November 2010

The Perils of the Prelate-Press Interview, Part I


There are two stories getting traction in the secular and Catholic press today, both of which highlight the dangers inherent in a Catholic priest, Bishop or Pope giving an interview for publication.

The first danger is the danger of being misquoted by the interviewer himself. There is much in the faith that escapes the comprehension of many secular reporters of good faith, and of course there are many such persons who dislike the Church and seek to distort the words or meaning of the interviewee.

The second danger is the danger of the news cycle-- meaning that the press who publish articles and sound bites about the published interview will often write that a person said something that he never actually said, or which the context clearly proves means something other than the sensationally reported news item.

Present in both cases is the possibility that one's enemies can also be found in the bosom of the Church.

That brings us to two recent stories that put the Church in a bad light, both of which items had their origin in a published press interview. These two stories are in other respects divergent, with one being essentially a non-news item that has been twisted and misunderstood by the press, and the other being a sad and mystifying spectacle caused by the actions of the interviewee. I speak of the Holy Father's recent interview, published as "Light of the World", and of Bishop Williamson's latest legal development. I will deal with the first here, and save the second for another post.

You may have read (or soon will read) headlines along the lines of "Pope Approves Use of Condoms in the Fight against AIDS". Yahoo, for instance, has "Pope says condoms acceptable 'in certain cases'".

This type of headline certainly shocks. But sorry to say, this is untrue, and the Pope's words are taken out of context; moreover, his remarks show a subtlety of thought that I think is beyond most of the persons reporting on it. And the culprit here in many ways, as it has been in throughout this pontificate, is the official newspaper of the Holy See, L'Osservatore Romano, that is supposed to be an outlet for the Pope to get his message to the world, but which has seemingly operated against him from the beginning and undermined his agenda. Readers of this blog will not be surprised that there are many within the Church who wish to radically change the Church and destroy her divine mission. Pope St. Pius X warned of them in Pascendi, and they still reside in good numbers within the official Church, even in the Curia.

This paper leaked quotes from the Italian version before the book was published, and before any context or even the full text was available. This isn't the first time in the last five years that justifies it, but let me just say that heads should roll at L'Osservatore Romano.

I will post below a good discussion of the Pope's words, the context, and the willful misunderstanding of the press. This comes from Jimmy Akin in the NCRegister; it is good and no need for me to invent the wheel:

Let’s look at the Pope’s remarks and see what he actually said.

Seewald: . . . In Africa you stated that the Church’s traditional teaching has proven to be the only sure way to stop the spread of HIV. Critics, including critics from the Church’s own ranks, object that it is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms.

Benedict: . . . In my remarks I was not making a general statement about the condom issue, but merely said, and this is what caused such great offense, that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms. [EMPHASIS ADDED] Much more needs to be done. We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease.

As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.

Note that the Pope’s overall argument is that condoms will not solve the problem of AIDS. In support of this, he makes several arguments:

1) People can already get condoms, yet it clearly hasn’t solved the problem.

2) The secular realm has proposed the ABC program, where a condom is used only if the first two, truly effective procedures (abstinence and fidelity) have been rejected. Thus even the secular ABC proposal recognizes that condoms are not the unique solution. They don’t work as well as abstinence and fidelity. The first two are better.

3) The fixation on condom use represents a banalization (trivialization) of sexuality that turns the act from being one of love to one of selfishness. For sex to have the positive role it is meant to play, this trivialization of sex—and thus the fixation on condoms—needs to be resisted.

So that’s the background to the statement that the press seized on:

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.But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality. [EMPHASIS ADDED]

There are several things to note here: First, note that the Pope says that “there may be a basis in the case of some individuals,” not that there is a basis. This is the language of speculation. But what is the Pope speculating about? That condom use is morally justified? No, that’s not what he’s said: that there may be cases “where this [condom use] can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way to recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed.”

In other words, as Janet Smith puts it,

The Holy Father is simply observing that for some homosexual prostitutes the use of a condom may indicate an awakening of a moral sense; an awakening that sexual pleasure is not the highest value, but that we must take care that we harm no one with our choices. He is not speaking to the morality of the use of a condom, but to something that may be true about the psychological state of those who use them. If such individuals are using condoms to avoid harming another, they may eventually realize that sexual acts between members of the same sex are inherently harmful since they are not in accord with human nature.

At least this is the most one can reasonably infer from the Pope’s remarks, which could be phrased more clearly (and I expect the Vatican will be issuing a clarification quite soon).

Second, note that the Pope immediately follows his statement regarding homosexual prostitutes using condoms with the statement, “But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.”

By “a humanization of sexuality,” the Pope means recognizing the truth about human sexuality—that it must be exercised in a loving, faithful way between a man and a woman united in matrimony. That is the real solution, not putting on a condom and engaging in promiscuous sex with those infected with a deadly virus.

At this point in the interview, Seewald asks a follow-up question, and it is truly criminal that L’Osservatore Romano did not print this part:

Seewald: Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

Benedict: She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

So Benedict reiterates that this is not a real (practical) solution to the AIDS crisis, nor is it a moral solution. Nevertheless, in some cases the use of a condom displays “the intention of reducing the risk of infection” which is “a first step in a movement toward . . . a more human way of living sexuality.”

He thus isn’t saying that the use of condoms is justified but that they can display a particular intent and that this intent is a step in the right direction.

Janet Smith provides a helpful analogy:

If someone was going to rob a bank and was determined to use a gun, it would better for that person to use a gun that had no bullets in it. It would reduce the likelihood of fatal injuries. But it is not the task of the Church to instruct potential bank robbers how to rob banks more safely and certainly not the task of the Church to support programs of providing potential bank robbers with guns that could not use bullets. Nonetheless, the intent of a bank robber to rob a bank in a way that is safer for the employees and customers of the bank may indicate an element of moral responsibility that could be a step towards eventual understanding of the immorality of bank robbing.

There is more that can be said about all this, but what we’ve already seen makes it clear that the Pope’s remarks must be read carefully and that they do not constitute the kind of license for condom use that the media would wish.


There you have it. If you insist on a very simple answer, "The Pope said no such thing" is a good one. A more nuanced one can be traced above, if you wish to have the discussions with family at Thanksgiving, or co-workers, who will no doubt gleefully taunt you with headline-baiting just to shove your self-righteous religious fanaticism down your throat. Or am I the only one who gets this?

The Church's prohibition against contraception--not that it could have been changed by private remarks in an interview-- remains untouched and unbesmirched by the Pope's comments.

Up next, the latest in the Williamson controversy.

And one more thing. Notice how there always seems to be a crisis, an embarrassment, a PR disaster, just when the Pope does anything friendly to Catholic tradition-- the motu proprio, the lifting of the SSPX excommunications, the elevation of Cardinals Burke and Ranjith. Now, I may be paranoid, but it makes me go hmmm...........

7 comments:

dulac90 said...

It is truly disgusting. I saw the headline and, upon reading the article, thought "that's not what he said at all."

I don't even think it was that nuanced.

Anonymous said...

In other words, so long as you pay for the sex, it's okay for homosexuals to use condoms and have sex. What in the world is going on?

thetimman said...

Anon, is that really what you took out of his remarks?

Dulac, you were saying?

Anonymous said...

Much ado about....not much. Nothing has changed in the position of the Church.
Besides, I doubt that male prostitutes were waiting expectantly for the Pope give them the go-ahead to use condoms.

c.rook said...

Thank you for defending the Pope and pointing out the misdirection of the L'Osservatore Romano.

At this point it is clear that our ancient enemy is strong in L'Osservatore Romano. I would hope it suffers severe underfunding very soon.

In addition, you are not the only one subject to gleeful taunting with headline-baiting. There are a few others out here in the same "boat".

Anonymous said...

The Pope should not be in the business of giving tips to male prostitutes about how to avoid disease.

Anonymous said...

The following is all that need be said on the subject. The language is clear and bracing. Words from the once and (one hopes) future Church. No ambiguous ruminations about "a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way":

"56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin." (Casti Conubii, Puis XII)