A Plea for Calm

^39 But if you seek anything further, it shall be settled in the regular assembly. ^40 For we are in danger of being charged with rioting today, there being no cause that we can give to justify this commotion.” ^41 And when he had said this, he dismissed the assembly. (Acts 19:39-41)

Preliminary Note:

I fully expect someone to accuse me of accusing me of some sort of liberalism, modernism or other ad hominem simply because I advise discovering the truth and who has what level of responsibility before calling for anyone's termination from his position.  To those people I simply point to my weblog as proof I have always stood in support of the Pope and the Magisterium and have sought to obey the Church I believe to be established by Christ under the headship of Peter and his successors.

I do not write this article to exonerate Giovanni Maria Vian and L'Osservatore Romano.  If they have done wrong, then they should face the results proportionate to what they have done. 

Rather, I feel that the anger is beginning to head off in a destructive direction and must be reined in.  Whether Giovanni Maria Vian or another individual needs to be fired or reprimanded, I do not know.  However, I suspect most of the others do not know either.

I simply call for us to calm down and wait for facts, and not behave in a way to cause scandal to those outside watching us.

Introduction

I figured it would happen somewhere though I didn't know who the target would be.  Some radical traditionalists have blamed it on Vatican II.  Some conservative Catholic bloggers have blamed the Pope for being "too egg-headed" or "academic." Others spoke about his assistants in general failing him.  I was half expecting someone to blame Peter Seewald but thankfully that didn't happen.

Now, however, we are seeing the blame go largely to L'Osservatore Romano.  Some of it seems justified.  Judging by reports, there seems to be some gross misconduct over their article (bad translation and breaking embargo), if the reports have it right. 

I believe that before calling for any action to be taken, we must determine what happened and who was responsible, and only then determine the proportionate penalty to the offense and apply it to the responsible.  This is not something determined by the blogging community, but by the proper authority in the Vatican.

An Article for the Prosecution

Canon Lawyer Edward Peters, a blogger I respect introduces his case for strong action, and his article makes some good points here:

I want to ask a few questions about the occasion of this public relations fiasco, namely, the decision by L’Osservatore Romano to publish prematurely, out of context, and without commentary, the single most controversial paragraph of the pope’s book, Light of the World, in, if nothing else, apparent violation of the agreement in place between its various publishers concerning a coordinated release of the work.

Fair enough.  These are serious charges, though ultimately I believe it would be the Pope's call to do as he saw fit in response.

However, I am less convinced when he goes on to say:

Instantly, of course, the world formed exactly the wrong understanding of that paragraph that anyone could have predicted.

I have problems with this statement.  The reason this does not convince me is that it took more than just a bad editorial decision or even gross misconduct to create this debacle.  It took media and dissenters acting with misconduct to scream "Pope says Condoms OK!" to the world without seeking confirmation on this matter.

Now the problem is, at this time we have only secondhand reports of what the Italian says (at the time of this writing, the English edition is dated November 17 and does not have this story).  Reports are the Italian translation are rather different from the original German which was spoken by Peter Seewald and the Pope, giving the impression that the Pope was speaking in a way giving sanction for Catholics to use condoms to prevent AIDS.

If these reports are true about the mistranslations, then it seems this is a serious charge.  (I don't intend to say I think they are false charges.  I merely follow Socrates and admit that I do not know, therefore I do not consider myself competent to judge).

Another thing which bothers me is the imputation of malicious intent which some are attributing to this action.

Philip Lawler is the editor for CWNews who calls for punitive action.  In his article, he says:

Why did L’Osservatore Romano violate journalistic norms, ignore obvious dangers, and print a potentially explosive statement out of its proper context? Was the editor hoping to stir up a ruckus, and push sales of Light of the World regardless of the pastoral cost? Was he hoping to stir up a new debate on condom use—something the Pope was quite obviously not seeking? Or was the editor blind to the dangers of publishing this excerpt? Whatever the answer might be, he has demonstrated that his editorial judgment cannot be trusted. As a necessary first step to address the continuous public-relations bungling at the Vatican, Giovanni Maria Vian, the editor of L’Osservatore Romano should be asked to resign.

This strikes me as problematic, and this attitude seems pandemic among certain Catholic blogs.  After certain bungles by certain individuals of the Pope's staff, people are saying they have had enough, and the editor should be fired.  I've had friends and family ask me why so-and-so is still working instead of being removed.  Some people want a clean slate in the Vatican and think people associated with certain problems should be fired.

In a Church Established by Christ, We Cannot Ignore Justice and Mercy

Why does this bother me?  Because ultimately the penalty should fit the crime.  So Giovanni Maria Vian should not be fired as a "necessary first step to address the continuous public-relations bungling at the Vatican."  That's nothing more than scapegoating.

He should only be fired if his actions or negligence in editing the paper are actions worthy of being fired over.  By this I mean, either things he chose to do which he should not have, or not to do but was obligated to do, or by failure to offer oversight to people under him where it is reasonable to hold him responsible.  Only if this is worthy of termination, are calls for his firing just.

Rash Judgment

Might I remind my fellow Catholics of a couple of paragraphs within the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.²⁷⁸ He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;²⁷⁹

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.²⁸⁰

I do not intend to say people like Peters and Lawler are acting under rash judgment.  Perhaps they have information we do not after all.  Rather I wish to point out that when malicious intent is being imputed, it must be proven and not assumed.

Not Defending Giovanni Maria Vian

Now don't accuse me of saying we should just ignore this incident.  If the accusations are true, something needs to be done.  However, Catholic teaching requires we find out what is true, before passing judgment, and recognizing that those with the proper authority and not the mob have this task of passing judgment.

Right now, we are justly angry at the distortion which the media has made of this case.  However, before calling for the head of Giovanni Maria Vian we need to ask if certain things are true:

1. Did he knowingly make a mistranslation seeking to create an incident?  That is a strong charge and requires proof.  Does it exist?
2. Did his staff incompetently translate the document?  If so, it requires correction, but does it require Giovanni Maria Vian to be fired?
3. Did they violate the embargo? Since nobody who received an advance copy was supposed to discuss the book until 11/23 and the article was published on Saturday, this seems to be the case.  So who is responsible and what is the penalty?
4. Did they know the media would take it out of context?  That's a hard case to make.  I read the quote from the AP article and it seemed immediately clear to me that the quote given did not justify the headline.  It became more clear when Ignatius Press released the pages in question that this is not what the Pope said.  So in this case, we have fault with the media.

Can We Claim We Know Enough to Judge?

Point #1 is a thing which need to be proven, but seem to be insinuated by some writers without proof.  Point #2 may be true, but right now the discussion on the web seems to be based on personal translations of German and Italian text which may be accurate but I am not competent to judge one way or another.  I think we do need some more authoritative sources to form an accurate judgment.

Point #3 seems to be the main point of the outrage, and it seems to be valid.  Unless it turns out the Pope exempted them, it seems it is undeniable that they broke the agreement.  Let the penalty fit the offense in this case.

Point #4 is the main concern I have with the current anger.  Properly speaking, we must assess what the person who makes a statement means before we evaluate it.  We must make sure that we do not have a false understanding of what was said.

The media reports completely failed to do this.  They made a Todd Unctuous style report.   Nobody contacted the Vatican for a clarification.  Yes the blame is on the L'Osservatore Romano for releasing an excerpt contrary to the embargo is just. But insinuating malice as their motive or claiming they should have realized the media would misinterpret?  That's too hard for me to swallow without proof.

Conclusion

So ultimately I call on my fellow Catholics to avoid a rush to judgment of L'Osservatore Romano for what was done by the media of the world in response to this article.  Let L'Osservatore Romano be judged for what they have done or what they were negligent in not doing, and not assume malicious intent until we know such intent.

Ultimately any investigation will be handled by the proper departments of the Vatican.  We may see someone fired.  We may not see anything publically happen.  Whatever happens, we must recognize that the Holy Father has the ultimate authority.  Since I recognize the Holy Father as a man of great personal integrity who seeks to do what is best for the Church, I trust that whatever he will decide to do, he will do because he thinks it best.

A Plea for Calm

^39 But if you seek anything further, it shall be settled in the regular assembly. ^40 For we are in danger of being charged with rioting today, there being no cause that we can give to justify this commotion.” ^41 And when he had said this, he dismissed the assembly. (Acts 19:39-41)

Preliminary Note:

I fully expect someone to accuse me of accusing me of some sort of liberalism, modernism or other ad hominem simply because I advise discovering the truth and who has what level of responsibility before calling for anyone's termination from his position.  To those people I simply point to my weblog as proof I have always stood in support of the Pope and the Magisterium and have sought to obey the Church I believe to be established by Christ under the headship of Peter and his successors.

I do not write this article to exonerate Giovanni Maria Vian and L'Osservatore Romano.  If they have done wrong, then they should face the results proportionate to what they have done. 

Rather, I feel that the anger is beginning to head off in a destructive direction and must be reined in.  Whether Giovanni Maria Vian or another individual needs to be fired or reprimanded, I do not know.  However, I suspect most of the others do not know either.

I simply call for us to calm down and wait for facts, and not behave in a way to cause scandal to those outside watching us.

Introduction

I figured it would happen somewhere though I didn't know who the target would be.  Some radical traditionalists have blamed it on Vatican II.  Some conservative Catholic bloggers have blamed the Pope for being "too egg-headed" or "academic." Others spoke about his assistants in general failing him.  I was half expecting someone to blame Peter Seewald but thankfully that didn't happen.

Now, however, we are seeing the blame go largely to L'Osservatore Romano.  Some of it seems justified.  Judging by reports, there seems to be some gross misconduct over their article (bad translation and breaking embargo), if the reports have it right. 

I believe that before calling for any action to be taken, we must determine what happened and who was responsible, and only then determine the proportionate penalty to the offense and apply it to the responsible.  This is not something determined by the blogging community, but by the proper authority in the Vatican.

An Article for the Prosecution

Canon Lawyer Edward Peters, a blogger I respect introduces his case for strong action, and his article makes some good points here:

I want to ask a few questions about the occasion of this public relations fiasco, namely, the decision by L’Osservatore Romano to publish prematurely, out of context, and without commentary, the single most controversial paragraph of the pope’s book, Light of the World, in, if nothing else, apparent violation of the agreement in place between its various publishers concerning a coordinated release of the work.

Fair enough.  These are serious charges, though ultimately I believe it would be the Pope's call to do as he saw fit in response.

However, I am less convinced when he goes on to say:

Instantly, of course, the world formed exactly the wrong understanding of that paragraph that anyone could have predicted.

I have problems with this statement.  The reason this does not convince me is that it took more than just a bad editorial decision or even gross misconduct to create this debacle.  It took media and dissenters acting with misconduct to scream "Pope says Condoms OK!" to the world without seeking confirmation on this matter.

Now the problem is, at this time we have only secondhand reports of what the Italian says (at the time of this writing, the English edition is dated November 17 and does not have this story).  Reports are the Italian translation are rather different from the original German which was spoken by Peter Seewald and the Pope, giving the impression that the Pope was speaking in a way giving sanction for Catholics to use condoms to prevent AIDS.

If these reports are true about the mistranslations, then it seems this is a serious charge.  (I don't intend to say I think they are false charges.  I merely follow Socrates and admit that I do not know, therefore I do not consider myself competent to judge).

Another thing which bothers me is the imputation of malicious intent which some are attributing to this action.

Philip Lawler is the editor for CWNews who calls for punitive action.  In his article, he says:

Why did L’Osservatore Romano violate journalistic norms, ignore obvious dangers, and print a potentially explosive statement out of its proper context? Was the editor hoping to stir up a ruckus, and push sales of Light of the World regardless of the pastoral cost? Was he hoping to stir up a new debate on condom use—something the Pope was quite obviously not seeking? Or was the editor blind to the dangers of publishing this excerpt? Whatever the answer might be, he has demonstrated that his editorial judgment cannot be trusted. As a necessary first step to address the continuous public-relations bungling at the Vatican, Giovanni Maria Vian, the editor of L’Osservatore Romano should be asked to resign.

This strikes me as problematic, and this attitude seems pandemic among certain Catholic blogs.  After certain bungles by certain individuals of the Pope's staff, people are saying they have had enough, and the editor should be fired.  I've had friends and family ask me why so-and-so is still working instead of being removed.  Some people want a clean slate in the Vatican and think people associated with certain problems should be fired.

In a Church Established by Christ, We Cannot Ignore Justice and Mercy

Why does this bother me?  Because ultimately the penalty should fit the crime.  So Giovanni Maria Vian should not be fired as a "necessary first step to address the continuous public-relations bungling at the Vatican."  That's nothing more than scapegoating.

He should only be fired if his actions or negligence in editing the paper are actions worthy of being fired over.  By this I mean, either things he chose to do which he should not have, or not to do but was obligated to do, or by failure to offer oversight to people under him where it is reasonable to hold him responsible.  Only if this is worthy of termination, are calls for his firing just.

Rash Judgment

Might I remind my fellow Catholics of a couple of paragraphs within the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.²⁷⁸ He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;²⁷⁹

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.²⁸⁰

I do not intend to say people like Peters and Lawler are acting under rash judgment.  Perhaps they have information we do not after all.  Rather I wish to point out that when malicious intent is being imputed, it must be proven and not assumed.

Not Defending Giovanni Maria Vian

Now don't accuse me of saying we should just ignore this incident.  If the accusations are true, something needs to be done.  However, Catholic teaching requires we find out what is true, before passing judgment, and recognizing that those with the proper authority and not the mob have this task of passing judgment.

Right now, we are justly angry at the distortion which the media has made of this case.  However, before calling for the head of Giovanni Maria Vian we need to ask if certain things are true:

1. Did he knowingly make a mistranslation seeking to create an incident?  That is a strong charge and requires proof.  Does it exist?
2. Did his staff incompetently translate the document?  If so, it requires correction, but does it require Giovanni Maria Vian to be fired?
3. Did they violate the embargo? Since nobody who received an advance copy was supposed to discuss the book until 11/23 and the article was published on Saturday, this seems to be the case.  So who is responsible and what is the penalty?
4. Did they know the media would take it out of context?  That's a hard case to make.  I read the quote from the AP article and it seemed immediately clear to me that the quote given did not justify the headline.  It became more clear when Ignatius Press released the pages in question that this is not what the Pope said.  So in this case, we have fault with the media.

Can We Claim We Know Enough to Judge?

Point #1 is a thing which need to be proven, but seem to be insinuated by some writers without proof.  Point #2 may be true, but right now the discussion on the web seems to be based on personal translations of German and Italian text which may be accurate but I am not competent to judge one way or another.  I think we do need some more authoritative sources to form an accurate judgment.

Point #3 seems to be the main point of the outrage, and it seems to be valid.  Unless it turns out the Pope exempted them, it seems it is undeniable that they broke the agreement.  Let the penalty fit the offense in this case.

Point #4 is the main concern I have with the current anger.  Properly speaking, we must assess what the person who makes a statement means before we evaluate it.  We must make sure that we do not have a false understanding of what was said.

The media reports completely failed to do this.  They made a Todd Unctuous style report.   Nobody contacted the Vatican for a clarification.  Yes the blame is on the L'Osservatore Romano for releasing an excerpt contrary to the embargo is just. But insinuating malice as their motive or claiming they should have realized the media would misinterpret?  That's too hard for me to swallow without proof.

Conclusion

So ultimately I call on my fellow Catholics to avoid a rush to judgment of L'Osservatore Romano for what was done by the media of the world in response to this article.  Let L'Osservatore Romano be judged for what they have done or what they were negligent in not doing, and not assume malicious intent until we know such intent.

Ultimately any investigation will be handled by the proper departments of the Vatican.  We may see someone fired.  We may not see anything publically happen.  Whatever happens, we must recognize that the Holy Father has the ultimate authority.  Since I recognize the Holy Father as a man of great personal integrity who seeks to do what is best for the Church, I trust that whatever he will decide to do, he will do because he thinks it best.

Damien Thompson Thinks Catholics are Mad at Pope, Not False News

Source: Conservative Catholics blame media for condoms story – but are they secretly cross with the Pope? – Telegraph Blogs

Damien Thompson was one of the Telegraph columnists who falsely reported that the Pope was changing the Church teaching on condoms and AIDS.  In this column, he admits "So perhaps I was wrong to report yesterday that the Pope had 'modified the Church’s absolute ban on the use of condoms.'"  However he still seems to be under the misunderstanding that the Pope is looking at condoms used by people suffering from AIDS as something which is morally acceptable.

Anyone who has read the full text in context would recognize that the statements made by the Pope do not permit the view that the Pope sees the use of condoms as moral.  Merely that the person infected with AIDS who uses a condom may be beginning to think of things in terms of moral obligations, but that a truly humane sexuality goes beyond this.  He points out:

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.

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.

It is only in the context of the above that the taken out of context text can be evaluated when it says:

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.

A telling point.  The Pope looks at the view of "using a condom" as a last resort is not a humane sexuality, but a self-centered need for sex.  The Pope's view recognizes the selfishness of the AIDS carrier who risks his spouse to satisfy sexual desires.  Use of a condom may be "less selfish" but not a good means in itself as has been misrepresented.

However, contrary to the words of the text, Thompson tells us:

Like it or not, the Holy Father made it clear that the use of condoms is sometimes permissible to stop the spread of the virus, even if – speaking in German – he didn’t use the words “permissable” or “justified”. What he didn’t say was “let’s go ahead and use condoms to fight against Aids,” which is what the third headline implies. 

There’s clearly a debate to be had about (a) the circumstances in which the Pope feels it’s permissable to use a condom and (b) the moral status of the act of using that condom. I don’t think the Holy Father’s comments settle these questions. But the plain, common sense reading of them is that he regards the use of a condom as a lesser evil than the transmission of the virus. Also, it doesn’t seem reasonable to extrapolate from the (apparent) reference to a male prostitute that this lesser-of-two-evils judgment doesn’t apply to sex between infected men and women.

The problem is, the Pope said absolutely nothing of the sort.

Indeed, Papal aide, Father Federico Lombardi. pointed out some clarifications which deny Thompson's interpretation, as reported in Zenit news:

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. 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," "a first step on the road toward a more human sexuality," rather than not using it and exposing the other to risking his life.

A first step, not a moral act.  Because the Pope pointed out that "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," shows that the "condoms are ok to stop AIDS" claim is in no way a Church teaching, nor what Benedict XVI intended to get across.

Unfortunately, Thompson goes on to not only claim that the Pope is advocating the use of condoms when one person has AIDS, but to claim that those who have objected to the misrepresentation of the Pope are really mad at the Pope for making a change in teaching:

[A quoted blogger's] post certainly makes a good deal more sense than those of his fellow conservatives who claim that the Pope didn’t say what he obviously did say… and then emphasise that he was only speaking in an interview AND how dare L’Osservatore Romano release these quotes out of context. Hmm. There is a strong whiff of cognitive dissonance in the air. I hate to pick a fight with bloggers I admire, and I won’t mention any names, but I get the strong impression that certain conservatives are tying themselves in knots trying not to say what they really think.

Which is that they disagree with the Pope.

Thompson's comment is an ad hominem fallacy, attacking those who take him to task, implying they are holding contradictory views, without considering that the "interview isn't formal teaching" comments and the "L'Osservatore Romano took quotes out of context" comments are in fact addressing two separate issues which were falsely alleged (in the first case, that the Pope was making a new teaching in a third party book, in the second case, that because it came from L'Osservatore Romano, it must be a teaching.

When all is said and done, Thompson is making a false accusation.  Catholics who have come to clarify Church teaching are not angry at the Pope, for we do not believe he is saying what Thompson claims in the first place.  Rather we object to the distortion of words taken out of context to imply sexual acts with condoms for the prevention of AIDS is a morally acceptable act, when it is clear the Pope had no such intention to claim such a thing.

To be honest, the assumption that such a book could be cited to claim a justification for a position is ludicrous and demonstrates ignorance of how the Church releases teachings.  Ignorance… or willful misrepresentation.

Damien Thompson Thinks Catholics are Mad at Pope, Not False News

Source: Conservative Catholics blame media for condoms story – but are they secretly cross with the Pope? – Telegraph Blogs

Damien Thompson was one of the Telegraph columnists who falsely reported that the Pope was changing the Church teaching on condoms and AIDS.  In this column, he admits "So perhaps I was wrong to report yesterday that the Pope had 'modified the Church’s absolute ban on the use of condoms.'"  However he still seems to be under the misunderstanding that the Pope is looking at condoms used by people suffering from AIDS as something which is morally acceptable.

Anyone who has read the full text in context would recognize that the statements made by the Pope do not permit the view that the Pope sees the use of condoms as moral.  Merely that the person infected with AIDS who uses a condom may be beginning to think of things in terms of moral obligations, but that a truly humane sexuality goes beyond this.  He points out:

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.

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.

It is only in the context of the above that the taken out of context text can be evaluated when it says:

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.

A telling point.  The Pope looks at the view of "using a condom" as a last resort is not a humane sexuality, but a self-centered need for sex.  The Pope's view recognizes the selfishness of the AIDS carrier who risks his spouse to satisfy sexual desires.  Use of a condom may be "less selfish" but not a good means in itself as has been misrepresented.

However, contrary to the words of the text, Thompson tells us:

Like it or not, the Holy Father made it clear that the use of condoms is sometimes permissible to stop the spread of the virus, even if – speaking in German – he didn’t use the words “permissable” or “justified”. What he didn’t say was “let’s go ahead and use condoms to fight against Aids,” which is what the third headline implies. 

There’s clearly a debate to be had about (a) the circumstances in which the Pope feels it’s permissable to use a condom and (b) the moral status of the act of using that condom. I don’t think the Holy Father’s comments settle these questions. But the plain, common sense reading of them is that he regards the use of a condom as a lesser evil than the transmission of the virus. Also, it doesn’t seem reasonable to extrapolate from the (apparent) reference to a male prostitute that this lesser-of-two-evils judgment doesn’t apply to sex between infected men and women.

The problem is, the Pope said absolutely nothing of the sort.

Indeed, Papal aide, Father Federico Lombardi. pointed out some clarifications which deny Thompson's interpretation, as reported in Zenit news:

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. 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," "a first step on the road toward a more human sexuality," rather than not using it and exposing the other to risking his life.

A first step, not a moral act.  Because the Pope pointed out that "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," shows that the "condoms are ok to stop AIDS" claim is in no way a Church teaching, nor what Benedict XVI intended to get across.

Unfortunately, Thompson goes on to not only claim that the Pope is advocating the use of condoms when one person has AIDS, but to claim that those who have objected to the misrepresentation of the Pope are really mad at the Pope for making a change in teaching:

[A quoted blogger's] post certainly makes a good deal more sense than those of his fellow conservatives who claim that the Pope didn’t say what he obviously did say… and then emphasise that he was only speaking in an interview AND how dare L’Osservatore Romano release these quotes out of context. Hmm. There is a strong whiff of cognitive dissonance in the air. I hate to pick a fight with bloggers I admire, and I won’t mention any names, but I get the strong impression that certain conservatives are tying themselves in knots trying not to say what they really think.

Which is that they disagree with the Pope.

Thompson's comment is an ad hominem fallacy, attacking those who take him to task, implying they are holding contradictory views, without considering that the "interview isn't formal teaching" comments and the "L'Osservatore Romano took quotes out of context" comments are in fact addressing two separate issues which were falsely alleged (in the first case, that the Pope was making a new teaching in a third party book, in the second case, that because it came from L'Osservatore Romano, it must be a teaching.

When all is said and done, Thompson is making a false accusation.  Catholics who have come to clarify Church teaching are not angry at the Pope, for we do not believe he is saying what Thompson claims in the first place.  Rather we object to the distortion of words taken out of context to imply sexual acts with condoms for the prevention of AIDS is a morally acceptable act, when it is clear the Pope had no such intention to claim such a thing.

To be honest, the assumption that such a book could be cited to claim a justification for a position is ludicrous and demonstrates ignorance of how the Church releases teachings.  Ignorance… or willful misrepresentation.

Much Ado About Nothing: Pope Misrepresented on Condoms and AIDS - Again

Update: Ignatius Press provides the pages in context HERE.  Note how the news reports took it out of context.

There seems to be several articles going around that the Pope is going to change the Church position on the use of condoms to prevent AIDS.  Originating from an AP story, and repeated on UK news sites and blogs is, in essence, the following:

Pope Benedict XVI says that condom use is acceptable "in certain cases", notably "to reduce the risk of infection" with HIV, in a book due out Tuesday, apparently softening his once hardline stance.

In a series of interviews published in his native German, the 83-year-old Benedict is asked whether "the Catholic Church is not fundamentally against the use of condoms."

"It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution," the pope replies.

"In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality," said the head of the world's 1.1 billion Catholics.

The AP treats this as a change in teaching, claiming:

Until now, the Vatican had prohibited the use of any form of contraception -- other than abstinence -- even as a guard against sexually transmitted disease.

Of course the Catholic News sites were in a flurry over the news… oh wait.  No they weren't.  In fact the articles show a gross misunderstanding on how the Church teaches.  The pope does not teach through interviews which are published by third parties.  The Pope issues formal statements: Encyclicals, Apostolic Letters, motu proprio, and others.

The media has made an error.  The Pope has not made a new teaching.  The book in question is an interview between the Pope and journalist Peter Seewald, entitled Light of the World.  This is in fact the third book in a series of interviews done between the Pope and Seewald.  The first one was Salt of the Earth, published in 1996 in Germany and in America in 1997 (Seewald had left the Church at this time of this interview).  The second was God and the World published in 2000 in Germany and 2002 in America.  The original intent was to interview the infamous Panzerkardinal and get his personal views on things.

What these books are, is in fact a series of interviews between now Pope Benedict XVI and Peter Seewald about the now Holy Father's personal thoughts on certain topics, and are not at all formal teachings of the Church.

The Pope described it as such in his introduction in God and the World:

In 1996, Peter Seewald suggested we gave a conversation about the questions that people today often put to the Church and are often for them an obstacle on the path of faith.

Ignatius Press, publisher of the American edition debunks the tabloid myth, with an Article by Janet E. Smith.

First she gives us the actual quote from Light of the World:

"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."

Doctor Smith makes a profound analysis on this statement:

Anyone having sex 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.

… 

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.

In other words, the person who realizes that the use of the condom with AIDS is less harmful than unprotected sex is at least making a first step towards a more human and moral view.  However, it is not the ultimate end.  Sexual relations making use of a condom may reduce the threat of passing on a lethal disease, but the one who loves realizes that love does not put the beloved at risk of life.

Let us remember that this was the Pope who received massive denunciation from the world for his statements on AIDS and condoms.  (I commented on this back in April 2009)  In speaking on a "more human" way of viewing sexuality, he said in 2009:

If there is no human dimension, if Africans do not help [by responsible behaviour], the problem cannot be overcome by the distribution of prophylactics: on the contrary, they increase it. The solution must have two elements: firstly, bringing out the human dimension of sexuality, that is to say a spiritual and human renewal that would bring with it a new way of behaving towards others, and secondly, true friendship offered above all to those who are suffering, a willingness to make sacrifices and to practise self-denial, to be alongside the suffering. And so these are the factors that help and that lead to real progress: our twofold effort to renew humanity inwardly, to give spiritual and human strength for proper conduct towards our bodies and those of others, and this capacity to suffer with those who are suffering, to remain present in situations of trial. It seems to me that this is the proper response, and the Church does this, thereby offering an enormous and important contribution. We thank all who do so.

To sum up.  There is no "new teaching" on condoms by Pope Benedict XVI.  The Pope is merely explaining his personal views on an issue which had been grossly distorted, showing a view which deepens the statements made in the 2009 interview en route to Africa.

Much Ado About Nothing: Pope Misrepresented on Condoms and AIDS - Again

Update: Ignatius Press provides the pages in context HERE.  Note how the news reports took it out of context.

There seems to be several articles going around that the Pope is going to change the Church position on the use of condoms to prevent AIDS.  Originating from an AP story, and repeated on UK news sites and blogs is, in essence, the following:

Pope Benedict XVI says that condom use is acceptable "in certain cases", notably "to reduce the risk of infection" with HIV, in a book due out Tuesday, apparently softening his once hardline stance.

In a series of interviews published in his native German, the 83-year-old Benedict is asked whether "the Catholic Church is not fundamentally against the use of condoms."

"It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution," the pope replies.

"In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality," said the head of the world's 1.1 billion Catholics.

The AP treats this as a change in teaching, claiming:

Until now, the Vatican had prohibited the use of any form of contraception -- other than abstinence -- even as a guard against sexually transmitted disease.

Of course the Catholic News sites were in a flurry over the news… oh wait.  No they weren't.  In fact the articles show a gross misunderstanding on how the Church teaches.  The pope does not teach through interviews which are published by third parties.  The Pope issues formal statements: Encyclicals, Apostolic Letters, motu proprio, and others.

The media has made an error.  The Pope has not made a new teaching.  The book in question is an interview between the Pope and journalist Peter Seewald, entitled Light of the World.  This is in fact the third book in a series of interviews done between the Pope and Seewald.  The first one was Salt of the Earth, published in 1996 in Germany and in America in 1997 (Seewald had left the Church at this time of this interview).  The second was God and the World published in 2000 in Germany and 2002 in America.  The original intent was to interview the infamous Panzerkardinal and get his personal views on things.

What these books are, is in fact a series of interviews between now Pope Benedict XVI and Peter Seewald about the now Holy Father's personal thoughts on certain topics, and are not at all formal teachings of the Church.

The Pope described it as such in his introduction in God and the World:

In 1996, Peter Seewald suggested we gave a conversation about the questions that people today often put to the Church and are often for them an obstacle on the path of faith.

Ignatius Press, publisher of the American edition debunks the tabloid myth, with an Article by Janet E. Smith.

First she gives us the actual quote from Light of the World:

"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."

Doctor Smith makes a profound analysis on this statement:

Anyone having sex 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.

… 

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.

In other words, the person who realizes that the use of the condom with AIDS is less harmful than unprotected sex is at least making a first step towards a more human and moral view.  However, it is not the ultimate end.  Sexual relations making use of a condom may reduce the threat of passing on a lethal disease, but the one who loves realizes that love does not put the beloved at risk of life.

Let us remember that this was the Pope who received massive denunciation from the world for his statements on AIDS and condoms.  (I commented on this back in April 2009)  In speaking on a "more human" way of viewing sexuality, he said in 2009:

If there is no human dimension, if Africans do not help [by responsible behaviour], the problem cannot be overcome by the distribution of prophylactics: on the contrary, they increase it. The solution must have two elements: firstly, bringing out the human dimension of sexuality, that is to say a spiritual and human renewal that would bring with it a new way of behaving towards others, and secondly, true friendship offered above all to those who are suffering, a willingness to make sacrifices and to practise self-denial, to be alongside the suffering. And so these are the factors that help and that lead to real progress: our twofold effort to renew humanity inwardly, to give spiritual and human strength for proper conduct towards our bodies and those of others, and this capacity to suffer with those who are suffering, to remain present in situations of trial. It seems to me that this is the proper response, and the Church does this, thereby offering an enormous and important contribution. We thank all who do so.

To sum up.  There is no "new teaching" on condoms by Pope Benedict XVI.  The Pope is merely explaining his personal views on an issue which had been grossly distorted, showing a view which deepens the statements made in the 2009 interview en route to Africa.

Reflections on the California Video Game Law Before the Supreme Court

There is recently a California law before the Supreme Court which forbids the sales of certain violent video games to minors (See here for some background).  What strikes me about this discussion is what is not being asked.

The Issue NOT Under Discussion

First of all, let me preempt certain angry responses

On some gamer sites, the argument tends to go that people either are entirely for censorship or must insist on no restrictions whatsoever, so let me make clear that this article is not an article supporting state control over all issues of our lives.

Moreover, this is not an article seeking to defend the California law (I think it should be redrafted personally as it is too vague in some parts and redundant in others)

What this Article IS About

What this article hopes to make clear is that there is a difference between the rights which an adult possesses and the rights which a child not yet legally responsible for their own decisions possesses — specifically the issue of the rights of the parent to bring up their children in accordance to what is right.

Ultimately this article focuses on the question of whether the retailer has the right to sell a movie or game with content labeled Mature or Restricted to a minor without consulting the parent.

"Freedom of Speech" Misses the Point

The article cites some of the Supreme Court Justices as divided:

"We do not have a tradition in this country of telling children they should watch people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they'll beg with mercy, being merciless and decapitating them, shooting people in the leg so they fall down," Chief Justice John Roberts said, according to a Nov. 2 report by the Associated Press.

By contrast, Justice Antonin Scalia said: "I am concerned with the First Amendment, which says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." He then added: "It has never been understood that the freedom of speech did not include portrayals of violence. You are asking us to create a whole new prohibition which the American people never ratified when they ratified the First Amendment."

Here is my problem with the basic assumptions of the Court: That it is a Free Speech issue as opposed to an issue of denying parents the right to control the media their minor children are exposed to.

The Parental Authority over their Children Overrides the Freedom of Expression for the Child

Whether one is strict on lenient on the types of restrictions which ought to be placed on content in media, one issue which used to be recognized is that the parent has the right to set the restrictions on what his or her minor child can view.

When one recognizes this, it becomes irrelevant to what the Supreme Court says on Free Speech.  If a parent deems certain material offensive, the Supreme Court does not have the right to overrule the parental decision.

Now of course there are limits.  As I pointed out in a past article parents can use poor judgment, and that merely using the "if it is ok with the parent, nobody has a right to complain" argument can lead to some extreme problems. 

We do realize there are also some moral absolutes involved.  If (to use a hypothetical example) a parent were to see nothing wrong with permitting their minor children the right to drink, smoke and watch pornography, most people would consider such parents failing to live up to their obligation in bringing up their children.

So here we run into a problem.  Some parents do have issues with the exposure of their children to R rated moves and M rated video games.  Others do not.  So the question is what happens when a minor goes to buy a movie or a game which is rated for an age above the person buying it?

Understanding the Movie/Game Rating System

We do recognize that certain bodies offer ratings to advise parents of the content of certain media.  The MPAA for example has an 'R' rating which advises that "Children Under 17 Require Accompanying Parent or Adult Guardian."  It also has an 'NC-17' rating which advises "No One 17 and Under Admitted."  Such ratings are not considered censorship for requiring a parent or guardian to accompany anyone under the age of 17 to an R rated movie and forbidding anyone 17 and under from seeing an NC-17 movie.  Rather they are considered to be helping parents be aware of the content.

Likewise the ESRB has a rating system for video games.  It gives a general description of videogames content to advise parents.  The issue of course is whether a game has content intended for people 17 and older.  The M rating for the ESRB rating is described as:

Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.

Very well.  For people who grew up with things like Pac Man and Space Invaders, a game which shows graphic death, profanity or other things may be problematic.  However, so long as we make sure that only individuals old enough to buy the game for themselves, or parents/guardians have made an informed decision that the game is not morally offensive, we do not have a problem.

When Retailers Violate the Rights of Parents

The problem with such a system is that, being voluntary, there is no legal obligation for a retailer to stop a 14 year old kid from buying a copy of RoboCop or Grand Theft Auto.  Now some stores have policies to check ID and some stores do not carry certain materials which goes against a family friendly mindset.

Unfortunately others do not, and that is why this case is before the Supreme Court.

This is my own take on the subject.  A law which requires a check of ID and requires parents to purchase  R rated movies or M rated games for their minor children does not violate the rights of the movie/game distributor, the retailer, the minor child or the parent.

HOWEVER, the retailer who does sell to a minor without checking ID does usurp the rights of the parent by making an assumption that the child has permission of his or her parent, or by not caring whether or not the child has permission so long as he has money.

Laws Requiring the Check of ID Do Not Demand the State do Parenting Instead of Parents

One of the annoying Straw man arguments I have seen on gamer sites is the claim that laws which place any restrictions demonstrate bad parenting by insisting the state do parenting for them.  That kind of argument might have been true back in the past before VCR Players, DVD Players and home consoles, and even PCs were common enough to be in every room of the house, back when either parents had to drive youth places or the youth were old enough to drive.

Instead, such laws prevent the minor from certain levels of access to content their parents have forbidden.  Now of course such laws can never be perfect.  There is always the possibility of the retailer being fooled by a fake ID.  There is always the possibility of a minor being exposed to content at the house of a friend with more lenient standards.  It would be ridiculous to expect the law to enforce the impossible.

However it does not follow that because a law cannot prevent everything it should prevent nothing.

On the Other Hand, The Existence of Laws Do Not Remove the Responsibilities of Parents

Just because a law exists which prevents the minor from the legal purchasing of something controlled does not mean the parent can abdicate any of their own responsibilities.  It is the responsibility of the parent to raise their child in keeping with the truth, and to discern what is acceptable or unacceptable in a way which movie or game ratings cannot accept.

For example, many parents have decided that the movie The Passion of the Christ was something they found suitable for their children to watch despite the violence contained within the movie.  On the other hand, Catholic parents would be unwise to let the old game Grandia II into their house even though it had a "T" rating (it was a pretty anti-Catholic game).

It's not enough to say "It's rated [whatever], therefore it must be OK/Bad."  Parents do need to discern messages in a movie or game which the state or rating agency is not competent to judge.

Thus we need to look at a fine line to see what can be legally liable and what cannot.

What a Just Law Should Require

Now the problem with the California law is that it sets up a state commission to establish what games within the ESRB code require a special 18+ sticker for violence.  This is redundant of course.  It is also subjective.  By what criteria is this commission to discern what is acceptable and what is not.  Is it acceptable for a store to not sell a game with a special 18+ sticker to a minor 16 years old, but also acceptable for a store to sell a game without the sticker, but still rated M (for 17+) to the same 16 year old?

I think certain objections on a vague line are justified.  If a game would warrant an 18+ sticker, why is it not rated AO for example instead of M.  Such a law creates overlapping

However, just because the current form of the California law seems to be flawed, it does not seem to logically follow that therefore no law should exist.

It seems to me that a just law would require the retailer to check the ID before selling a movie rated R or NC-17, or a game rated M or AO to someone who is suspected of being under the required age, refusing to sell to people under this age, and if the retailer will not comply, they can be fined for violations of such a law.

Conclusion

Such a law would not prevent a parent or guardian from using their own discretion and permitting a child to view a certain R rated movie or playing a certain M rated game.  Nor would it violate the rights of the game creator from offering a game for sale or a retailer to sell games to an adult.

It would however say to the retailer "You do not have a right to sell such a movie or game to a minor who is not your own child.  Only the parent has this right to permit the child access."

Again, such a law would not protect the minor from being exposed to materials at a home of a friend with parents who held lesser standards.  However, once we recognize such a situation is beyond the scope of the law anyway, such an argument against passing any law at all becomes irrelevant.