What the Pope REALLY said about condoms

[mannyamador]

---

Pope Benedict and the Condom Question
By Fr. Joel O. Jason, SThL

(Fr Joel is a diocesan priest of the Archdiocese of Manila. He is currently Dean of Studies at San Carlos Seminary in Guadalupe Makati and teaches Fundamental Moral Theology, Sexuality and Integrity and Bioethics. He also heads the Commission on Family and Life of the Archdiocese of Manila)

This article seeks to clarify the perceived confusion and surprise that greeted the whole Catholic as well as non-Catholic world. International as well as local journal headlines read:

“Pope says condoms are justified in fight against HIV”

“Pope says condoms are acceptable in some cases

“Pope softens on teaching on Condoms, Aids and Contraception”

“Pope: Condom use OK for fight against AIDs”

The whole controversy started from a supposed “leaked” German interview the Pope granted to journalist Peter Seewald in an upcoming book yet to be released entitled “Light of the World: The Pope, The Church and the Signs of the Times”. For the sake of intellectual integrity, let us see what the Pope really said from this excerpt of the transcript of the interview connected with the condom question: Here is that portion in it’s entirety:

From Chapter 11, “The Journeys of a Shepherd,” pages 117-119:

Peter Seewald:

On the occasion of your trip to Africa in March 2009, the Vatican’s policy on AIDs once again became the target of media criticism. Twenty-five percent of all AIDs victims around the world today are treated in Catholic facilities. In some countries, such as Lesotho, for example, the statistic is 40 percent. 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.

Pope Benedict:

The media coverage completely ignored the rest of the trip to Africa on account of a single statement. Someone had asked me why the Catholic Church adopts an unrealistic and ineffective position on AIDs. At that point, I really felt that I was being provoked, because the Church does more than anyone else. And I stand by that claim. Because she is the only institution that assists people up close and concretely, with prevention, education, help, counsel, and accompaniment. And because she is second to none in treating so many AIDs victims, especially children with AIDs.

I had the chance to visit one of these wards and to speak with the patients. That was the real answer: The Church does more than anyone else, because she does not speak from the tribunal of the newspapers, but helps her brothers and sisters where they are actually suffering. 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. Much more needs to be done (emphasis mine). 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 (emphasis mine). 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 (emphasis mine). 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.

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, (The preceding is the only sentence the secular media focused on to reach their conclusions) 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 mine).

(The next question and answer was totally ignored by the secular media)

Peter Seewald:

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

Pope Benedict:

She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution (emphasis mine), 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 (emphasis mine).

So with the full text in question now presented, what conclusions can we derive?

First things first. There is a principle in Biblical interpretation that goes:

“A text, out of context, is pretext.”

It means that every text of the Bible should be understood in its integral context: in the unity of the whole message of a chapter, of a series of books, of the theology of the writer, and even the unity of the whole Biblical message. Taken in isolation, a text in the Bible can be reduced to a pretext, i.e., a half-truth or at worst, a misleading misinterpretation.

The headlines we read above, regarding the supposed change Benedict proposes on the consistent sexual ethics of the Church connected with condoms and HIV, are clear examples of a text taken out of context. As you can see, Pope Benedict gave a long answer to a rather short question. I highlighted the parts that spell out clearly Benedicts’ convictions as well as that of the Church’s. What some interpreters took out in isolation was that part where it says, “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…”. They did not even finish the whole sentence.

With these laid out, so what now did Pope Benedict NOT say?

1. First of all, this is a personal interview. Pope Benedict is not speaking here in his capacity as the Supreme Teacher of the Catholic faith. What you find in the book are not proposed as official teachings nor pronouncements being sent out to the Catholic faithful. Some of the things we can read here can even fall in the category of personal opinions and therefore do not and cannot present themselves as official Magisterial teachings. If the Pope wants to hold out a new teaching based on his reasoned discernment as the Successor of Peter, a personal interview is not the place to do it. Everyone who knows basic Catechism understands this, much more the Pope. And so headlines claiming, “Pope changes teaching on Condoms, Contraception and HIV”, or “Pope: Condoms OK in fight Against AIDS” are totally way out of line.
   
   
2. Nowhere in the text of Pope Benedict’s response can we find a summary justification of the morality of condom use. This is clear in the texts I highlighted. Let me highlight them once again: “…that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms. Much more needs to be done,” ; “…But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself” ; “ 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” ; “…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.”

I don’t see how the quotes above translate to “Pope OKs Condom Use”. On the contrary, the above quotations reflect the consistent conviction of the Church regarding condom use vis a vis HIV/AIDs: that condoms are not the solution. If at all, they contribute to the perpetuation of the problem. Condoms can only reduce the risk of infection. And with the fatally serious threat of HIV/AIDs, risk reduction is not acceptable. Prevention is the only acceptable option. And prevention is only served by abstinence (for the unmarried) and monogamy and fidelity (for the married).

In the first place, Pope Benedict’s response was not even a direct commentary on the possible moral justification of condom use, clearly not for contraception. He was making a moral speculation on what may be going on in the heart of one (a male prostitute) who uses the condom in a homosexual or heterosexual *** act.

What did Pope Benedict intend to say?

Pope Benedict was specific in his response. He spoke of a “male prostitute” who uses a condom. What the Pope stressed was not that condom use is OK in the case of a male prostitute engaged in heterosexual or homosexual acts. He merely said that “this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility…” Perhaps an analogy can help us appreciate what the Pope is saying (for this point I will modify a principle I picked up from lay moral theologian Janet Smith).

There are two robbers. One uses a real knife with a real intent to kill and harm. The other uses a plastic knife because he has no real intention of killing. He only intends to frighten and intimidate. Both men will be committing an evil act. But obviously, between the two, it is the one who employs a toy knife that shows at least a hint, a semblance, a little amount of moral responsibility which hopefully, can still mature to a real and correct kind of moral responsibility that will let him realize that robbing people is an evil option to take. Does this mean the Church will teach that it is “OK” and moral to rob people using a fake knife? No. The Church simply says that between the two, the one with the fake knife is the one that manifests a semblance of an “assumption of responsibility”, immature it may be.

The same logic can be applied to Pope Benedict’s example. Obviously, the mere fact that the person used a condom indicates a “semblance of responsibility.” One who engages in prostituted *** without a condom, shows a total absence of moral responsibility, for himself or for the other. Compared to this one, one who uses a condom at least shows a hint of “assuming a responsibility” which Benedict hopes can be a “first step in the direction of a moralization” i.e., hopefully it can develop to a more correct kind of responsibility, not in the direction of regular condom use, as secular interpreters assumed, but, as Benedict finished his sentence, (which the secular media left out), “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.”

As we see here, Pope Benedict is too deep a theologian and a thinker to be presented from a shallow and surface level interpretation. The Pope and the Church’s consistent ethical teachings deserve more than that. We pray that the media may also assume responsibility in reporting matters related to faith and morals. We pray that intellectual integrity and professionalism may not be sacrificed for the sake of ideology, sensationalism and paper sales.

[AmorsoloX]

the pope just said its ok to use condom, practice safe s3x... thats that.. end of story...

[hush232002]

nicely said...this will really help those who are confused with the recent Pope issue...


More honourable than the Cherubim, and far glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim. Without defilement, you gave birth to God the Word. True Theotokos, we magnify you.

[mannyamador]

the pope just said its ok to use condom, practice safe s3x

That's not true. Kindly show me the text where the Pope said that.

Well?

You CAN'T, right? I thought so.

But then I expect the usual Church-haters to twist and distort anything anyone says to suit their hateful agenda.

Here's more on what the Pope REALLY said (as opposed to what some anti-Catholics want you to think the Pope said)...


What does the Holy Father really say about condoms in the new book?
By Dr. Janet E. Smith
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/i...2010&Itemid=70

This week, Light of the World, a book-length interview given by Pope Benedict XVI to journalist Peter Seewald, will be released worldwide. Several of the Holy Father's statements have already started making news, particularly his comments regarding condom usage in the prevention of the spread of HIV.

To the charge that “It is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms,” in the context of an extended answer on the help the Church is giving AIDs victims and the need to fight the banalization of sexuality, Pope Benedict replied:

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.

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

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.

What is Pope Benedict saying?

We must note that the example that Pope Benedict gives for the use of a condom is a male prostitute; thus, it is reasonable to assume that he is referring to a male prostitute engaged in homosexual acts. 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 *** are inherently harmful since they are not in accord with human nature. The Holy Father does not in any way think the use of condoms is a part of the solution to reducing the risk of AIDs. As he explicitly states, the true solution involves “humanizing sexuality.”

Anyone having *** that threatens to transmit HIV needs to grow in moral discernment. This is why Benedict focused on a “first step” in moral growth. The Church is always going to be focused on moving people away from immoral acts towards love of Jesus, virtue, and holiness. We can say that the Holy Father clearly did not want to make a point about condoms, but wants to talk about growth in a moral sense, which should be a growth towards Jesus.

So is the Holy Father saying it is morally good for male prostitutes to use condoms? The Holy Father is not articulating a teaching of the Church about whether or not the use of a condom reduces the amount of evil in a homosexual sexual act that threatens to transmit HIV. The Church has no formal teaching about how to reduce the evil of intrinsically immoral action. We must note that what is intrinsically wrong in a homosexual sexual act in which a condom is used is not the moral wrong of contraception but the homosexual act itself. In the case of homosexual sexual activity, a condom does not act as a contraceptive; it is not possible for homosexuals to contracept since their sexual activity has no procreative power that can be thwarted. But the Holy Father is not making a point about whether the use of a condom is contraceptive or even whether it reduces the evil of a homosexual sexual act; again, he is speaking about the psychological state of some who might use condoms. The intention behind the use of the condom (the desire not to harm another) may indicate some growth in a sense of moral responsibility.

In Familiaris Consortio (On the Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World), John Paul II spoke of the need for conversion, which often proceeds by gradual steps:

To the injustice originating from sin … we must all set ourselves in opposition through a conversion of mind and heart, following Christ Crucified by denying our own selfishness: such a conversion cannot fail to have a beneficial and renewing influence even on the structures of society.

What is needed is a continuous, permanent conversion which, while requiring an interior detachment from every evil and an adherence to good in its fullness, is brought about concretely in steps which lead us ever forward. Thus a dynamic process develops, one which advances gradually with the progressive integration of the gifts of God and the demands of His definitive and absolute love in the entire personal and social life of man. (9)

Christ himself, of course, called for a turning away from sin. That is what the Holy Father is advocating here; not a turn towards condoms. Conversion, not condoms!

Would it be proper to conclude that the Holy Father would support the distribution of condoms to male prostitutes? Nothing he says here indicates that he would. Public programs of distribution of condoms run the risk of conveying approval for homosexual sexual acts. The task of the Church is to call individuals to conversion and to moral behavior; it is to help them understand the meaning and purpose of sexuality and to help them come to know Christ, who will provide the healing and graces that enable us to live in accord with the meaning and purpose of sexuality.

Is Pope Benedict indicating that heterosexuals who have HIV could reduce the wrongness of their acts by using condoms? No. In his second answer he says that the Church does not find condoms to be a “real or moral solution.” That means the Church does not find condoms either to be moral or an effective way of fighting the transmission of HIV. As the Holy Father indicates in his fuller answer, the most effective portion of programs designed to reduce the transmission of HIV are calls to abstinence and fidelity.

The Holy Father, again, is saying that the intention to reduce the transmission of any infection is a “first step” in a movement towards a more human way of living sexuality. That more human way would be to do nothing that threatens to harm one’s sexual partner, who should be one’s beloved spouse. For an individual with HIV to have sexual intercourse with or without a condom is to risk transmitting a lethal disease.

An 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.


Dr. Janet E. Smith holds the Father Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit. She speaks nationally and internationally on Catholic teachings on sexuality and on bioethics, and has published numerous articles and several books on sexuality and bioethics. She is serving a third term as a consultor to the Pontifical Council on the Family. She is author of The Right to Privacy, a study of Roe v. Wade and related court cases.

Resources:

Edward C. Green, “The Pope May Be Right” Washington Post (Sunday, March 29, 2009);

Edward C. Green and Allison Herling Ruark, “AIDS and the Churches: Getting the Story Right” First Things (April, 200;

Edward C. Green, Rethinking AIDS Prevention: Learning from Successes in Developing Countries (Praeger: 2003);

Matthew Hanley and Jokin de Irala, Affirming Love, Avoiding AIDS: What Africa Can Teach The West (National Catholic Bioethics Center, 2009);

Susan E. Wills, “Condoms and AIDS: Is the Pope Right or Just “Horrifically Ignorant?” The Linacre Quarterly, 77:10 (Feb 2010) 17-29;

Edward C. Green, AIDS, Behavior, and Culture: Understanding Evidence-Based Prevention (Left Coast Press: 2010) forthcoming

[Saga]

^^ ilaha ra pud na interpretation sa gi ingon sa pope.. maybe ang pope dapat ato ipa explain kung unsa jud iyaha pasabot...

mapareha jud ni sa bible nga kada usa sa atoa naa own interpretation...



the church teaching is getting obsolete...

anyway.. bisan usaon ug explain or maneuver para mka come up ug favorable logic about what he said.. it does not change the fact nga generally ni ingon xa.. its okay to use condom in some certain situation...

[mannyamador]

Aide: Benedict XVI Doesn't Justify Condom Use
Notes Pope's Ability to See Small Steps of Impoverished Humanity
ZENIT - Aide: Benedict XVI Doesn't Justify Condom Use

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 21, 2010 (Zenit.org).- A Vatican spokesman is clarifying that Benedict XVI is not justifying condom use, though the Pope said it could in some cases be a first step toward moral behavior.

Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office, said this in a statement today regarding the words of Benedict XVI as recorded in a book, "Light of the World" (Ignatius Press), scheduled for release on Tuesday.

On Saturday, L'Osservatore Romano published some quotes from this book, which drew public interest and media misunderstandings.

At the end of the tenth chapter of the book, the writer, German journalist Peter Seewald, asked the Pontiff two questions on the fight against AIDS and the use of condoms. Seewald referenced the Holy Father's comments on this topic while aboard the papal plane on the way to Cameroon and Angola in March, 2009.

Father Lombardi noted that Benedict XVI answered Seewald by insisting "on the fact that focusing only on condoms is equivalent to banalizing sexuality, which loses its meaning as an expression of love between persons and becomes a 'drug.'"

The spokesman affirmed that "fighting against banalization of sexuality is 'part of the great effort to help sexuality be valued positively and have a positive effect on man in his totality.'"

He added, "In the light of this broad and profound vision of human sexuality and the contemporary discussion of it, the Pope reaffirms that 'naturally the Church does not consider condoms as the authentic and moral solution' to the problem of AIDS."

"In this the Pope does not reform or change the Church's teaching, but reaffirms it," the priest stated.

"At the same time the Pope considers an exceptional circumstance in which the exercise of sexuality represents a real threat for the life of another," the spokesman explained.

Recovering awareness

The Ignatius Press blog, Ignatius Insight, published these excerpts of the book today, noting the Pontiff's words: "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."

When Seewald asked the Holy Father to clarify the Church's position on the use of condoms, Benedict XVI responded: "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."

Father Lombardi explained, "In that case, the Pope does not morally justify the disordered exercise of sexuality but maintains that the use of a condom to reduce the danger of infection may be 'a first act of responsibility,'" as opposed to "not using it and exposing the other to risking his life."

"In this, the reasoning of the Pope certainly cannot be defined as a revolutionary change," he said.

"With courage Benedict XVI thus offers us an important contribution of clarification and reflection on a question that has long been debated," the priest affirmed.

He continued, "It is an original contribution, because on one hand it maintains fidelity to moral principles and demonstrates lucidity in refuting an illusory path like that of the 'confidence is condoms.'"

On the other hand, Father Lombardi said, "it manifests a comprehensive and far-seeing vision, attentive to uncovering the small steps -- even if only initial and still confused -- of an often spiritually and culturally impoverished humanity, toward a more human and responsible exercise of sexuality."

He pointed out that in this book, "the Pope again clearly stresses" that when he spoke to journalists aboard the papal plane "he had not intended to take a position on the problem of condoms in general."

Rather, the spokesman noted, the Pontiff "wanted to affirm with force that the problem of AIDS cannot be solved simply by distributing condoms, because much more needs to be done: prevention, education, help, counsel, being with people both to keep them from getting sick and in the case that they do get sick."

[AmorsoloX]

ingon si papa pope nga ok ra lage daw mag-condom.. so dapat, gamit lage condom...

be responsible.. practice safe s3x!

[Tirong-say]

Nganong mogamit man gyud ug condom,
kung dili gyud kinahanglanon,
kinahanglan gyud diay mag-condom, let us say
first night sa kasal.

[AmorsoloX]

Nganong mogamit man gyud ug condom,
kung dili gyud kinahanglanon,
kinahanglan gyud diay mag-condom, let us say
first night sa kasal.

what if kasal na? n wala plans mag himu additional anak n medu bugnaw2x?.. di ghapon pwede? hhehehe

[pepau]

this is one of the topics where most of us show our weakness. we tend to justify having *** against anything else.

maypag d na lng mocomment ang mga representative sa church about ani nga issue arun dili kaayo sila maluto sa mantika. i would appear man gud nga saving face mode sila sa sige nilag defend