Published: November 30, 2010

“The great condom debate”

http://calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=a5d16724-832c-4e1a-86a3-d168ac9a79c6

‘No change in Church’s beautiful but difficult teaching’

Rome, Italy (CNA) — In an exclusive commentary provided to CNA, Fr. Joseph Fessio, publisher of Pope Benedict XVI’s books in English, responds to the international media controversy prompted by the pope’s new book, Light of the World. His full remarks are published below.

By Father Joseph Fessio, S.J.

The Great Condom Debate has entered Round Two. Now it looks like Pope Benedict XVI has really said something he has never said before. That would be news. But it looks like it’s really, really news because now the apparent change (or at least the camel’s nose wedge) in Church teaching is even more dramatic.

It would be sad, wouldn’t it, if in fact the pope was simply “clarifying and deepening” (Vatican spokesman Father Lombardi’s words on Nov. 21), that same old boring Church teaching? And wouldn’t it be even sadder if this new statement by the pope were even less unusual than the original one seemed to be?

But that’s the case. Once again Catholic truth is stranger than media fiction.

“But, Fr. Fessio, that’s impossible. This is some Jesuit trick. You Jesuits have always been defenders of the popes, even the worst of them. You even take a vow to say what looks white is black if the pope says so. We know your game. You’re not fooling us.”

Let’s see if I can “clarify and deepen” this. Of course, it’s understandable that the news media would like to see some change in the Church teaching. This isn’t necessarily because of their “pleasure in exposing the Church and if possible discrediting her,” as the pope says in his new book, Light of the World. By profession, and even by definition, they are seeking “news.” What’s not new is not news. So there is a very strong predisposition to find in the pope’s written text (the book) and in his oral statement (to Fr. Lombardi) something new.

Unfortunately there is not only nothing new here (except perhaps a new level of incomprehension on the part of many otherwise intelligent people). But the second statement (about heterosexual sex) is paradoxically less unusual than the first (about homosexual sex).

First, the Vatican spokesman, who on Nov. 23 said, “I asked the pope personally if there was a serious distinction in the choice of male instead of female and he said ‘no.’ Whether a man or a woman or a transsexual does this, we’re at the same point,” had written two days previously about “the same point” we’re at, namely, that the pope’s contribution “maintains fidelity to moral principles.” Translation: is nothing new.

But we don’t need to take Fr. Lombardi’s word for that. It can be demonstrated.

In the original German text of Light of the World, and in the English translation, the pope refers to a “male prostitute.” Everyone I’ve read so far has assumed, and I believe rightly so, that this refers to homosexual acts. So now that the pope is said to have said that the distinction between male and female does not affect the point he’s making (and I believe that we can rightly assume that this second statement refers to heterosexual acts), this appears to be a “broader” statement. It applies not just to homosexual but also to heterosexual acts.

This is where the paradox enters. The pope’s second statement now appears broader, but it’s actually no broader at all. It may include more persons, but it adds nothing to the doctrine. The Church has always clearly taught — to the consternation of many — that the use of condoms in procreative acts is immoral. But the pope’s initial statement explained that even if the sexual act is not procreative, the Church still opposes condom use. That is really provocative and has been universally taken to be so — much more provocative than the prohibition of condom use in heterosexual acts.

Put in another way: some may concede that when the Church forbids condoms in procreative acts, at least a reasonable case can be made that this is because the Church opposes the separation of the unitive (sex) and procreative (children) factors in sexual intercourse; but when these factors are already separated, then what’s the problem? The condoms are being used only for protection. Why is the Church against that?

Well, the pope took this harder case as an example in his initial statement about male prostitutes. That was seen as a possible “breakthrough” or even change in Church teaching. It wasn’t. The pope merely said that the intention of preventing infection could be a sign of an awakening moral conscience.

The act of sex with a condom can still not be “considered [by the Church] a real or moral solution,” he said in the interview. That is, it is immoral; which is another way of saying that it is an act that is evil in itself.

But the point I’m making here is that the second statement is less surprising than the first, not more. And it doesn’t “broaden” the application of his principle to include heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. The condom prohibition has always applied to heterosexuals, and for stronger reasons because it involves the evil of contraception.

But didn’t the pope say that sex with a condom to prevent infection is a lesser evil? Well, the pope didn’t say that, at least in his book. Fr. Lombardi said it. But the pope could have said it, because in one sense it’s true. (I’ll explain why this is only “in one sense” in a moment.) Unfortunately, however, for those whose profession is reporting news, there is nothing new in this at all.

What may be new is the fact the many educated people no longer understand the ethics of the “lesser evil.” It’s not difficult to understand, though. The crucial distinction is: one may tolerate a lesser evil; one may never morally do something which is a lesser evil.

An example: A gunman is holding 10 hostages. He says that unless I kill the police chief, he will kill the 10 hostages. The death of one person is, in this case, the lesser evil. But I cannot morally kill the police chief. One can never do something that is evil in itself to achieve something good or to avoid some evil, even a greater evil.

In the case of condom usage, the good of protecting against infection cannot justify the immoral sexual act, even though performing that act with a condom may be a lesser evil than performing it without one.
The “may be” in that last sentence refers to what I said above: that condomized sex is in one sense a lesser evil. That is, in the case of a single individual act, the prevention of infection by condom usage makes that particular act less evil. However, it has been shown (and it makes sense) that when there is widespread use of condoms, the sense of security against risk leads to greater promiscuity: more frequency; more partners. And this leads to overall greater risk of disease among the sexually active population. So in this sense, condom usage is the greater evil.

So: Round One went to the pope: no change in Church teaching, just “clarifying and deepening” the same old, unchanging, beautiful but difficult Catholic teaching about the true meaning of sexuality.

Round Two goes to the pope as well. Still no change in Church teaching. No broadening of exceptions (there are no exceptions in either case). Still the same old, unchanging, beautiful but difficult Catholic teaching about the true meaning of sexuality.
And no news.

Is it too much to hope that now we can hear about what really is new: a pope responding to so many interesting or controversial questions in a published interview?

Father Joseph Fessio, SJ, is a theologian in residence at Ave Maria University, and the founder and editor of San Francisco-based Ignatius Press, the English language publisher of Pope Benedict’s books, including his latest, “Light of the World: The Pope, the Church, and the Signs of the Times.”

© California Catholic Daily 2010. All Rights Reserved.

***********************************************************************************

Friendly Fire on Benedict XVI. And a Condom’s to Blame

The pope’s openness to the use of condoms is provoking lively reactions from some fervent “Ratzingerians.” They include Jesuit Fr. Joseph Fessio, his publisher in America, and authoritative members of the Pontifical Academy for Life. Here are their criticisms

by Sandro Magister

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1345793?eng=y

ROME, December 1, 2010 – As was to be expected, Benedict XVI’s comments on condoms in the book-length interview “Light of the World” have ignited a very lively discussion within the Catholic Church.

In two previous articles, http://www.chiesa presented the pope’s words in a way that prompted immediate reactions from prominent Catholic figures in the field of sexual morality.

The criticisms are not focused only on http://www.chiesa and on Professor Martin Rhonheimer, the theologian of the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross whose essay was reprinted.

Nor only on “L’Osservatore Romano” or on Fr. Federico Lombardi, accused of fostering a misunderstanding of the pope’s thought.

At the end of it all, the real target of the criticism is Benedict XVI himself.

“Our Holy Father should stop talking about aberrant sex and talk more about Jesus,” was the peremptory comment sent to us by Christine Vollmer, president of the Miami-based Alliance for the Family and a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life.

Another authoritative member of this academy, Professor Luke Gormally, former director of the Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics in London and a professor at the Ave Maria School of Law in Ann Arbor, Michigan, castigated the pope for wanting to speak as a mere theologian on matters “in which he possesses no particular competence.” With these results:

“It seems to many people I know that it is both irresponsible (because it creates confusion in the general populace about the exercise of the papal magisterium) and self-indulgent; self indulgent because it is a case of the Pope retreating to his ‘comfort zone’ of writing and talking while neglecting urgent tasks of governance.”

Christine Vollmer and Luke Gormally were, in the spring of 2009, among those who accused Archbishop Rino Fisichella, at the time president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, of nearly going so far as to justify in “L’Osservatore Romano” the double abortion that had been procured for an underage Brazilian mother. The two, together with other members of the academy, appealed to the pope against Fisichella and obtained a note of clarification from the congregation for the doctrine of the faith.

But this time, in their judgment, it is Benedict XVI who is opening up cracks of “ambiguity” in Catholic morality.

Another prominent figure who has taken part in the discussion, abruptly denying that the pope wanted to introduce innovations in doctrine and pastoral practice concerning condoms, is Jesuit Fr. Joseph Fessio, president of Ignatius Press and therefore the publisher of “Light of the World” in the United States, in addition to being a member of the Schülerkreis, the circle of scholars whose theology professor was Joseph Ratzinger.

*

But let’s take things in order. A first type of criticism has concerned the translation originally posted online by http://www.chiesa – before the book had been published in the various languages – of the pope’s words on the condom.

In effect, when http://www.chiesa previewed that section of the book, the only source for it was “L’Osservatore Romano,” which had published it – in Italian only – on the afternoon of Saturday, November 20.

So the translators of http://www.chiesa were able to work only on the Italian (Vatican) version of the book. Which, in effect, is not perfect. And it will almost certainly be made more faithful to the original German text in an upcoming reprinting of the book.

There are two imprecisions in the Italian translation of the passage.

The first: “una prostituta” in the feminine, instead of “un prostituto” in the masculine, as in the original German: “ein Prostituierter.”

The second: “Vi possono essere singoli casi giustificati” in the use of  condoms, where “giustificati” appears excessive with respect to the original German: “Es mag begründete Einzelfälle geben…”, better translated in the American edition as: “There may be a basis in the case of some individuals…”

It must be noted, however, that the author, Benedict XVI, has not maintained that either the first or the second imprecision of the Italian version of the book distorts his argument. Fr. Lombardi clarified the matter both with the statement released on Sunday, November 21, read and approved personally by the pope, and by reporting on Tuesday the 23rd what the pope had said to him in reply to a specific question on the matter:

“The point is the responsibility in considering the risk to the life of the other with whom one has relations. If it is done by a man, a woman, or a transsexual, it is the same.”

*

A second and more substantial series of objections concerns the interpretation of the pope’s words made by http://www.chiesa. In two passages in particular.

The first: “Many cardinals and bishops and theologians, but above all ranks of pastors and missionaries have for some time peacefully admitted the use of the condom, for many concrete persons met in the ‘care of souls.’ But it is one thing for them to do it, and another for a pope to say it out loud.”

The second: “If this loving understanding applies to a sinner, it could apply all the more to the classic case encountered in Africa and elsewhere by pastors and missionaries: that of two spouses, one of whom is sick with AIDS and uses a condom to avoid endangering the life of the other.”

As for the first passage, the observation is the same one that appears in Fr. Lombardi’s note of Sunday, November 21, approved by Benedict XVI himself:

“Numerous moral theologians and authoritative ecclesiastical figures have supported and support analogous positions; it is nevertheless true that we have not heard this with such clarity from the mouth of the Pope, even if it is in a informal and not magisterial form.”

As for the second passage, it is true that Benedict XVI, in the book, does not comment on the case mentioned there. But the article by Professor Martin Rhonheimer reproduced by http://www.chiesa demonstrates that the legitimacy of the use of condoms, in cases like this, has been taught uneventfully for years even in the Roman theological faculties most faithful to the magisterium of the Church, like the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross. The inviolable condition for the use of condoms to be permitted in such cases is that it have purposes other than that of contraception.

*

Naturally, the question remains a disputed one. In his book-length interview, Benedict XVI has brought this dispute into the sunlight, encouraging everyone to take part in it.

From this point of view, the barrage of criticism against http://www.chiesa is welcome.

On the web pages indicated below, the readers of http://www.chiesa will find the main critical comments received, in their entirety.

Summarizing:

1. The article from http://www.chiesa with the previews of “Light of the World” published by “L’Osservatore Romano” on the afternoon of November 20, together with the original German of the passage on the condom:

> The Pope on the Pope. A Preview

2. The first, immediate criticism by Fr. Joseph Fessio of the behavior of “L’Osservatore Romano,” of the imprecisions of the translation and of the pope’s apparent “justification” of the use of condoms:

> Fessio: Did the Pope “justify” condom use in some circumstances?

3. Other critical observations on the Italian translation of the pope’s words, made by James Bogle, president of The Catholic Union of Great Britain:

> Bogle: “Light of the World”, the Pope, condoms and media inaccuracy

The note of clarification released on November 21 by Fr. Federico Lombardi:

> Lombardi: “At the end of chapter 11 of the book…”

5. The critical reaction to http://www.chiesa and to Fr. Lombardi of Steven A. Long, professor of theology and philosophy at Ave Maria University in Naples, Florida:

> Long: Remarks of Benedict XVI Regarding Condoms

6. The second critical statement from Fr. Fessio, written before Fr. Lombardi reported that his note of November 21 had been read and approved by the pope:

> Fessio: Gimme That Old Time Religion. Part II

7. The article from http://www.chiesa with the reprinting of the article by Professor Martin Rhonheimer of the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, in favor of the use of condoms for non-contraceptive purposes:

> “Light of the World.” A Papal First

8. Rhonheimer’s article was published in the July 10, 2004 issue of “The Tablet.”  In response, Luke Gormally, a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life, published a comprehensive criticism in the summer 2005 issue of  “The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly”:

> Gormally: Marriage and the Prophylactic Use of Condoms

Today this article by Gormally is considered by Fr. Fessio and others to be the best refutation of arguments in favor of condoms in particular cases. Its author recommends that it be read, in this message to http://www.chiesa:

> Gormally: “Your commentary seems to me even more irresponsible…”

__________

English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.