El cardenal Burke lo reafirma: hay que negar la comunión a quien defienda el aborto

In Religión en Libertad

Como tantos otros temas relacionados con el consistorio del 20 de noviembre, las firmes palabras del ahora cardenal Raymond Burke contra la comunión de los políticos pro-aborto quedaron eclipsadas por la "polémica condonera" del libro de Peter Seewald, pero han quedado grabadas en Radio Vaticana (en http://212.77.9.15/audiomp3/00236048.MP3 ) y viniendo del Prefecto de la Signatura Apostólica (el "tribunal supremo" de la Iglesia) no pueden desdeñarse.

En vísperas de su elevación al cardenalato, la periodista Tracey McClure preguntó a Burke por "las observaciones que usted hizo sobre los políticos pro-abortos, por ejemplo, los que reciben la Comunión” y si se sentía desanimado porque muchos “no están recibiendo el mensaje”.

“Pienso que es natural sentirse tentado a desanimarse, y yo he padecido esas tentaciones”, respondió el cardenal Burke. “Por ejemplo, sobre la cuestión de si puede recibir la Santa Comunión una persona que pública y obstinadamente defiende el derecho de una mujer a abortar al hijo que lleva en sus entrañas, me parece algo muy claro en los 2000 años de tradición de la Iglesia: la Iglesia ha afirmado enérgicamente que una persona que está pública y obstinadamente en pecado grave no debe acercarse a recibir la Santa Comunión y, si él o ella lo hace, entonces se le debe negar la Santa Comunión”.

El cardenal Burke explicó que la sanción de negar la Comunión a una persona que disiente públicamente de las enseñanzas de la Iglesia busca “evitar que la persona cometa un sacrilegio. En otras palabras, evitar que reciba el Sacramento indignamente, ya que la santidad del Sacramento mismo exige estar en estado de gracia para recibir el Cuerpo y la Sangre de Cristo”.

“Es desalentador que algunos miembros de la Iglesia digan que no entienden esto o que digan que de alguna manera existe un atenuante para alguien que, aunque está pública y obstinadamente en pecado grave, pueda recibir la Santa Comunión”, dijo el cardenal Burke.

“Esta respuesta por parte de muchos miembros de la Iglesia proviene de la experiencia de vivir en una sociedad que está completamente secularizada, y la idea que está grabada a fuego – el pensamiento centrado en Dios que ha marcado la disciplina de la Iglesia – no la entienden fácilmente los que son bombardeados cada día con una especie de aproximación sin-Dios al mundo y a muchas cuestiones. Es por eso que yo trato de no desanimarme para continuar proclamando el mensaje en una forma que la gente pueda entender”.

El cardenal pidió a los obispos que en este tema no dejen solos a sus sacerdotes frente a sus feligreses pro-aborto.

“No ha sido fácil para mí afrontar esta cuestión frente a algunos políticos católicos. Y he tenido a algunos sacerdotes que me hablan y me dicen qué duro es cuando ellos tienen individuos en sus parroquias que están en una situación de pecado público y grave… y entonces, ellos miran al obispo para animarse e inspirarse para afrontar esta situación”. Por eso, “cuando un obispo adopta medidas pastorales apropiadas respecto a este tema, también está ayudando mucho a otros obispos, y también a los sacerdotes”.

Burke insistió en que es necesario predicar este mensaje “a tiempo y destiempo, tanto si es cálidamente recibido o no es recibido, o es resistido o criticado”.

No hay novedad en dichos del Papa sobre condón, solo incomprensión, explica P. Fessio S.J.

ROMA, 25 Nov. 10 / 08:53 pm (ACI)

El Padre Joseph Fessio, editor de la versión en inglés del libro-entrevista "Luz del mundo", explicó que en esta obra el Papa Benedicto XVI no ha dicho nada nuevo sobre el condón y tampoco ha hecho una "ampliación de excepciones" como sostiene cierta prensa.

El sacerdote jesuita, fundador y editor de Ignatius Press, la firma encargada de publicar en inglés las obras del Papa Benedicto XVI, consideró que –desafortunadamente para ciertos medios de prensa–, "no hay nada nuevo en lo dicho" por el Papa sobre los preservativos, "excepto tal vez un nuevo nivel de incomprensión de parte de muchas personas inteligentes".

"La Iglesia siempre ha enseñado claramente –para consternación de muchos– que el uso de los condones en actos procreadores es inmoral" y el Papa no ha cambiado esta enseñanza.

El sacerdote sostuvo que muchos consideraron "el complejo caso de un prostituto" que usa condón para prevenir el SIDA citado por el Papa en el libro, "como un posible ‘campanazo’ o incluso cambio en la enseñanza de la Iglesia" pero "no lo fue. El Papa simplemente dijo que la intención de prevenir la infección (con un condón) podría ser un signo del despertar de la conciencia moral".

El P. Fessio lamentó que "pocos entiendan, incluyendo los medios" lo que ha dicho el Papa y explicó que "el bien de protegerse contra la infección no justifica el acto sexual inmoral, incluso si realizarlo de esta manera podría ser un mal menor comparado a no usar un preservativo".

"Es decir, en el caso de un individuo, la prevención de la infección con el uso del condón hace ese acto en particular menos malo. Sin embargo, se ha visto (y tiene sentido) que cuando hay uso masivo de condones, el falso sentido de seguridad ante el riesgo hace que haya más promiscuidad: más frecuencia, más parejas sexuales. Y esto genera un mayor riesgo de enfermarse entre quienes conforman la población sexualmente activa. En este sentido, el uso del condón es un mal mayor", agregó.

En "Luz del mundo", el Papa ha ganado los dos rounds: "no hay cambio en la enseñanza de la Iglesia, solo clarificación y profundización" y tampoco "ha ampliado las excepciones. Todo lo que hay es la misma vieja, inmutable, pero compleja para enseñar enseñanza de la Iglesia sobre el significado de la sexualidad", concluyó.

Fr. Fessio, S. J. defends Benedict XVI's condom remarks

In CNA

Rome, Italy, Nov 24, 2010 / 05:16 pm (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.

In the great condom debate, no change in the Church’s beautiful but difficult teaching

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 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.”

Por la vida naciente - Cardenal Antonio Cañizares

In Religión en Libertad

Si al final del siglo XX la Iglesia «no podía callar ante los abusos sociales entonces existentes, menos aún puede callar hoy, cuando a las injusticias sociales del pasado, tristemente no superadas todavía, se añaden en tantas partes del mundo injusticias y opresiones incluso más graves, considerándolas tal vez como elementos de progreso de cara a la organización del nuevo orden mundial» (Juan Pablo II). Sin duda, la injusticia y la opresión más grave que corroe y destruye el momento presente es esa gran multitud de seres humanos débiles, inocentes e indefensos que está siendo aplastada en su derecho humano fundamental e inalienable a la vida.

El desafío que tenemos todos, hombres y mujeres de hoy, es urgente y arduo. Sólo la cooperación concorde de cuantos creen en el valor de la vida, lo protegen y defienden, podrá evitar una derrota del hombre y de nuestra civilización de consecuencias imprevisibles.

Como el Papa Juan Pablo II recordó tantísimas veces a la humanidad entera, una de las causas mas decisivas en la que se va a jugar –ya se está jugando– el futuro de la humanidad y la salvación del hombre, en el siglo XXI y en el Tercer Milenio de nuestra era, va a ser –está siendo– la causa de la vida. El siglo XX fue el siglo de las grandes guerras, de las más terribles guerras de toda la historia humana. Desde la perspectiva de la fe católica, pero también desde la misma razón, habría que añadir, que el siglo XX es el periodo histórico en el que el valor de la vida se ha visto más universalmente amenazado y más abiertamente puesto en cuestión.

Nuevas y gravísimas amenazas se ciernen sobre la vida y la dignidad de las personas. La vida de los no nacidos, de los enfermos terminales, de los ancianos, de los discapacitados, de los disminuidos de todo tipo, se encuentra cada vez más desamparada no sólo por leyes vigentes o en trance de formularse, sino también por las costumbres y estilos de vida en boga en la sociedad actual. Parece que se trata de vidas humanas de inferior valor y menos dignas de protección jurídica y social que las de los sanos, fuetes y autosuficientes en lo físico, lo psíquico y lo económico-social. Es evidente que gana terreno lo que Juan Pablo II calificó como «cultura de la muerte». Los que tenemos la firme convicción de nuestra llamada a la vida, los que queremos al hombre y apostamos por él, su grandeza y dignidad, tenemos ahí un grandísimo desafío ante el que no podemos desalentarnos: no cejaremos jamás en la defensa de este hombre amenazado. Si hoy, con razón, nos avergonzamos de la esclavitud legal de otros tiempos, no tardará en llegar un día –no está lejano– en que nos avergoncemos y arrepintamos de esta cultura y legislaciones permisivas de muerte también legalmente establecidas, y de manera singular nos arrepentiremos y avergonzaremos de los millones de abortos anuales amparados por leyes antihumanas y, por tanto, antisociales, o de otras prácticas antivida amparadas por leyes igualmente antihumanas y antisociales.

Tenemos el gran desafío de crear una conciencia más profunda y arraigada del don maravilloso de la vida y, consecuentemente, de una cultura de la vida. Hay que ayudar a formar la conciencia, amordazada por las presiones, agresiones y las manipulaciones de una cultura de la muerte. En esta lucha se juega buena parte del futuro de la humanidad. Será, a la vez, el test que medirá el grado y espesor de la verdadera calidad humana. Son grandes los retos, cierto; pero son muy grandes, aún mayores, y con horizontes mucho más amplios, las esperanzas. Para nosotros, los cristianos, con el tiempo de Adviento, que comienza el domingo próximo, se abre la gran esperanza, que llega a los hombres con el nacimiento de Quien es la vida y trae vida a los hombres. Con esta esperanza, el sábado próximo por la tarde, se elevará hasta el cielo una plegaria universal por la vida humana naciente. Desde todas las iglesias y parroquias se elevará una plegaria a favor de la vida naciente hasta el Dios de la vida, Dueño único de la vida, que regala la vida y quiere que el hombre viva, y cuya gloria es que el hombre viva. El Papa mismo, en las primeras vísperas del primer domingo de Adviento, en la basílica de San Pedro en Roma, presidirá esta plegaria a favor de la vida humana naciente con todos los que llenemos a su lado este centro de la cristiandad. Con él, en todas las partes, nos uniremos todos en la oración común por la vida humana naciente. La Iglesia no tiene otras armas ni otros poderes que la fuerza de Dios. Por eso, llenos de confianza, pedimos esta ayuda a favor de la vida humana naciente, por eso esta plegaria que se elevará a Dios desde todos los rincones de la tierra, en espera de Quien ha venido a nosotros, en Belén, y se ha hecho niño para que todos tengamos vida. Esta vigilia de oración nos acompañará la Santísima Virgen María, Madre de la vida, cuya intercesión invocaremos a favor de toda vida naciente. ¡No podemos faltar, si amamos la vida! Busquemos el templo que mejor nos acomode para esta oración.

Publicado en La Razón

Cardinal Burke: It’s ‘very clear’ pro-abort politicians should be refused Communion

by Thaddeus Baklinski

ROME, November 22, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On the eve his elevation to the Cardinalate on November 20, Archbishop Raymond (now Cardinal) Burke told a Vatican Radio interviewer that his stand on refusal of Communion to pro-abort politicians or public figures is based on “the God-centered thinking which has marked the discipline of the church” – namely, that a person who persists publicly in grave sin is to be denied Holy Communion.

Cardinal Burke spoke to Tracey McClure on November 19 about some of the challenges faced by the Church in the United States.

Cardinal Burke has never hesitated to make bold public statements in defense of the culture of life, and is viewed as a personal hero and the best of allies by those who are active in promoting faithful Catholic education, as well as those within the pro-life and pro-family movements. Notably, he has upheld and defended Cardinal Ratzinger’s instruction that persistently pro-abortion politicians or public figures must not be admitted to communion until they publicly repent.

McClure first described Burke “as a man with very firm ideas about the moral rectitude of those who profess Catholicism - ideas that don’t always sit comfortably with everyone - and I’m thinking of some of the remarks you’ve made about pro-abortion politicians, for example, receiving Communion - the Holy Eucharist - in the United States.” He then asked the Cardinal if he ever feels discouraged because people “aren’t getting the message.”

“I think it’s only natural to be tempted to discouragement, and I’ve had those temptations,” Cardinal Burke responded. “For instance, on the question of a person who publicly and obstinately espouses the right of a woman to choose to abort the infant in her womb receiving Holy Communion, strikes me as something very clear in the 2,000 years of the church’s tradition - she’s always firmly held that a person who is publicly and obstinately in grave sin should not approach to receive Holy Communion and, if he or she does, should be denied Holy Communion.”

Cardinal Burke explained that the sanction on receiving Communion for a person who publicly dissents from Church teaching is intended to “avoid for the person - himself or herself - committing a sacrilege: in other words, receiving the Sacrament unworthily, and also because the holiness of the Sacrament itself demands that one be in a state of grace to receive the Body and Blood of Christ.”

“It is discouraging that either members of the Church claim not to understand this or they claim that in some way there is an excuse for someone who is publicly and obstinately in grave sin to receive Holy Communion,” Cardinal Burke said.

“I look at it this way,” he continued. “This response on the part of many in the church comes from living in a society that’s completely secularized, and the thinking that is marked - the God-centered thinking which has marked the discipline of the church - is not easily understood by those who are bombarded day in and day out with a kind of God-less approach to the world and to many questions. So, I try not to get discouraged but try to continue to speak the message in a way that people can understand.”

Cardinal Burke expressed his understanding of the difficulty faced by his fellow priests in dealing with this issue.

“It’s difficult ... it hasn’t been easy for me to face this question with a certain number of Catholic politicians. And, I’ve had a number of priests speak to me and tell me how difficult it is when they have individuals in their parish who are in a situation of public and grave sin ... and so, they look ... to the bishop for encouragement and inspiration in dealing with this.”

However, the cleric said that is necessary to preach this message “in season and out of season, and whether it’s being warmly received or not being received or being resisted or criticized.” He stated that his committed stand on Church teaching is not only “speaking the truth with love as the Holy Scriptures say,” but that “when a bishop takes appropriate pastoral measures in this regard, he’s also helping very much brother bishops, and also the priests.”

Listen to the Vatican Radio interview with Cardinal Burke here.

Cardinal Burke: What the Pope Really Meant

by John Burger

In National Catholic Register

Freshly minted Cardinal Raymond Burke discusses the controversy regarding 'Light of the World,' and what it’s like to work in Ratzinger’s Rome.

Cardinal Raymond Burke is prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, the court of final appeal at the Vatican.

The Wisconsin native is the first American to hold that curial position. Pope Benedict XVI, who appointed him to the post in 2008, elevated him to cardinal Nov. 20, along with American Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., and 22 other bishops and archbishops from around the world.

In the midst of activities related to the consistory of Nov. 22, Cardinal Burke took some time to read an advance copy of Light of the World: The Pope, the Church, and the Signs of the Times, Pope Benedict’s book-length interview with German journalist Peter Seewald, just as a controversy about the Pope’s views on condom use broke in the press. Cardinal Burke discussed the issue by phone Nov. 22 with Register news editor John Burger.

In Light of the World, Peter Seewald poses the objection that “it is madness to forbid a high-risk population (AIDS) to use condoms. To which Pope Benedict answers, in part, “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.”

Seewald asks for a clarification: “Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?” The Pope answers, “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 the Pope saying here? Is he saying that in some cases condoms can be permitted?

No, he’s not. I don’t see any change in the Church’s teaching. What he’s commenting on — in fact, he makes the statement very clearly that the Church does not regard the use of condoms as a real or a moral solution — but what he’s talking about in the point he makes about the male prostitute is about a certain conversion process taking place in an individual’s life. He’s simply making the comment that if a person who is given to prostitution at least considers using a condom to prevent giving the disease to another person — even though the effectiveness of this is very questionable — this could be a sign of someone who is having a certain moral awakening. But in no way does it mean that prostitution is morally acceptable, nor does it mean that the use of condoms is morally acceptable. The point the Pope is making is about a certain growth in freedom, an overcoming of an enslavement to a sexual activity that is morally repugnant [unacceptable] so that this concern to use a condom in order not to infect a sexual partner could at least be a sign of some moral awakening in the individual, which one hopes would lead the individual to understand that his activity is a trivialization of human sexuality and needs to be changed.

Is “the world” assuming too quickly that the Pope all of a sudden is open to “compromising” on condoms, that this may be a small yet significant opening toward “enlightenment” for the Catholic Church? For example: In rare cases, Pope justifies use of condoms (New York Times). “Condoms OK” in some cases — Pope (BBC). Boston Herald quoting male prostitutes saying “too little too late, but it may encourage condom use, and that’s a good thing.”

From what I’ve [been] seeing of the coverage in the media, I think that’s correct, that that’s what they’re trying to suggest. But if you read the text there’s no suggestion of that at all. It’s clear that the Pope is holding to what the Church has always taught in these matters. He starts out — the context of the question — he starts out by saying that when he was asked this question on the plane on his way to his pastoral visit to Africa, he felt that he was being provoked, and he wanted to draw attention to all that the Church is doing to care for AIDS victims. In Africa, the Church is the main agent of care for the AIDS victims, and so he was trying to draw some attention to that.

The text itself makes it very clear that he says the Church does not regard it as a real or moral solution. And when he says that it could be a first step in a movement toward a different, more human way of living sexuality, that doesn’t mean in any sense that he’s saying the use of condoms is a good thing.

If the media has misunderstood it, is this perhaps a failure of Pope Benedict XVI and the Vatican to communicate effectively? Is there a need to “dumb things down” so the media gets it?

I hope now the fact that the media has interpreted this in a way, at least from what I can gather from the communications that I’ve received, this false interpretation is rather widespread, that it will be rather important for the Holy See now to clarify the matter. [The Vatican Press Office did indeed issue a clarification Nov. 22, saying, “The Pope again makes it clear that his intention was not to take up a position on the problem of condoms in general; his aim, rather, was to forcefully reaffirm that the problem of AIDS cannot be solved simply by distributing condoms, because much more needs to be done: prevention, education, help, advice, accompaniment, both to prevent people from falling ill and to help them if they do.]

That’s what’s going to have to happen now, because even some of the commentators who might be in general well disposed to the Holy See could misinterpret this and take it that indeed the Holy Father is making some change in the Church’s position in regards to the use of condoms, and that would be very sad.

Did you see any Catholic commentary on this, e.g., Janet Smith, who holds the Father Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit? Do you agree with her interpretation?

I did. I thought it was a good commentary. It’s quite accurate. She goes into it quite in depth. She might have underlined a little bit more the words of the Holy Father himself, although she does: When she was asked if the Pope is indicating whether heterosexuals who have HIV could reduce the wrongness of their acts by condoms, she says No. “In his second answer, he says the Church does not find condoms to be a real or a moral solution.” Again, she repeats, “the intention to reduce the transmission of an infection is a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.” That is, the intention is the first step, but that doesn’t mean that the Holy Father is justifying the means by which the person wants to fulfill that intention.

So, if nothing has changed in Catholic teaching on sexuality or the use of condoms, has this conversation changed anything?

I don’t see it at all. What I see is the Holy Father is presenting a classical position of the Church from her moral theology. I imagine that self-mastery and self-discipline is not an immediate accomplishment, so we have to understand that it may take people time to reform their lives. But that doesn’t suggest that he’s diminishing the moral analysis of the immoral actions of the male prostitute, for instance.

It seems that perhaps some of what he says in the answers to Seewald’s questions might lead to a renewed conversation on the nature of married love and sexuality.

That’s what I would hope, and I think that’s what the Holy Father was suggesting in the beginning of that part of the conversation with Peter Seewald, where he engages in that whole point about the trivialization of human sexuality. He says, for instance: the fact of the matter is people have access to condoms. That shows us in fact, as he points out, that condoms don’t resolve the question, and that’s when he begins, “the sheer fixation on the condom implies a sort of banalization of sexuality, which after all is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as an expression of love, but only a certain sort of drug that people administer to themselves.” He talks about the whole fight against the banalization and dehumanization of sexuality and the need to see human sexuality as a positive good. And sexual activity as having a positive effect on the whole of man’s being, being an expression of man’s goodness. So that’s the context, and I would hope that this matter going forward, in being clarified, there’s a real possibility of teaching more clearly about human sexuality.

Did anything else about this conversation between Pope Benedict XVI and Peter Seewald surprise you?

I think that what is remarkable about it, in general, is that the Holy Father granted the interview and speaks really very directly about a whole wide range of very complex questions, and there’s a great deal of his usual erudition and knowledge of Catholic teaching. And he’s very straightforward too. Peter Seewald, when he gets things mixed up, for example, at one point in the conversation about ecumenism, Seewald said he was quoting then-Cardinal Ratzinger, talking about the dialogue with the Orthodox and so forth, that Cardinal Ratzinger held the position that the pope was “first among equals” — which of course, as the Pope points out to him, is not what he said at all. The pontiff has certain responsibilities in the Church, so he can’t be equal to all the patriarchs, for instance, of the Orthodox Church. There are a lot of excellent clarifications that the Holy Father makes, but I would say that what’s most striking about it is the wide range of topics and the Holy Father’s willingness to comment on them.

Seewald also brought up a question in regard to the declaration Dominus Iesus, and the Holy Father simply said that it’s too complex an issue to deal with in the setting of the interview.

In that discussion about unity with the Orthodox that you reference, Seewald asks, “Will Pope Benedict restructure the papacy in order to foster the unity of Christianity?” The Holy Father corrects Seewald in his interpretation of the phrase “First among equals” applying to the successor of St. Peter. He says it is not the formula we believe as Catholics and adds, “The pope has specific functions and tasks. … The question (for the Orthodox) is precisely whether the pope has specific tasks or not.” What tasks is he speaking of?

The pope is the principal foundation of the unity of the Church. That can’t be carried out by a group of people. That is the function of Peter as the head of the apostolic college, the Prince of the Apostles. To put it very plainly, that’s the first task. He is the bishop of the universal Church, and it’s a difficult point for the Orthodox to accept, but one can’t be faithful to Catholic teaching and say that the Roman pontiff is simply one more patriarch. No, he has a service to unite all — all the patriarchs, all the particular churches into one. And that involves a direct and universal governance.

He also says, “These are contentious issues, which I would have to say more about than I can right now.” Does that suggest that something is going on in Catholic-Orthodox dialogue that will be major news?

I don’t know that. I can’t comment on that. It’s not my area of responsibility in the Holy See, and I would not be competent to talk about it. I do think there’s been a constant effort to try to help the Orthodox understand the Petrine ministry as the Catholic Church understands it, obviously to achieve a greater unity, and I do believe that over years there’s been progress in that regard. On the other hand — I know (and this is just from my own conversations) it’s a very difficult point for the Orthodox. He starts out that section pointing out that Bishop Gerhard Mueller of Regensburg [thinks that Catholic and Orthodox have achieved 97% of ecclesial unity]. The Pope himself says he would shy away from saying that because it’s clear that we’re not 97% on the way to unity with the Orthodox and that the question of the primacy of Peter is a big question. It’s not something that’s just 3% concern. It’s much bigger than that.

The book gives us a fascinating glimpse into the life of this Pope. From your own perspective, what’s it like working in the Curia under Pope Benedict?

The Holy Father is a deeply spiritual person. I’ve had many contacts with him, strikingly for me, for instance during his apostolic visits, both the one in April of 2008 in the United States and the recent one in Great Britain. People say How is it that visits from this elderly man who holds these difficult doctrines wins over the people? Those who think the visit is going to be a disaster — suddenly they’re captured by the Holy Father. I think that the first thing that captures them is simply his goodness. He’s very close to Our Lord. Secondly, he’s a very gentle soul, a very kindly and understanding person. And thirdly, he’s got a remarkable wisdom and knowledge. I think he has an extraordinary gift for teaching, in putting the most profound truths into language that’s very accessible. People come to Rome, they love to listen to our Holy Father because of his teaching, and so those would be some of the aspects of working with him that I know that are a great comfort to me and also an encouragement and help in carrying out my service.

And you yourself: You came from relative obscurity, having been the bishop of remote La Crosse, Wis. Now, at least in many Americans’ eyes, you’ve become a rather prominent cardinal at the Vatican and a great defender of orthodoxy. Have you ever had a kind of “how did I get here” moment?

I’ve been a priest now for 35 years. I think back to when I entered seminary, and the great inspiration for me was the various priests in my home parish and the desire to be a parish priest, the pastor of a parish. Of course, I went in the seminary and I learned as a priest to show obedience and respond to the degree I was morally able to do whatever I was asked to do. As it turned out in my life, for the most part, I’ve had a good amount of parish priestly work and ministry. But I’ve been asked more and more to give that particular service which sort of supports pastors but doesn’t involve me so directly in the pastoral work of a priest, now more so than ever because of the intensity of the matters I have to study and about which I have to write, so that it’s not possible for me to administer a parish, which obviously wouldn’t be appropriate for me either as a cardinal, but I don’t have a particular flock; my service is to the Roman Curia.
So, yes, I’ve had those moments wondering how did I get here, and I’ve often said to people, especially now in the case of this consistory, that I never forget where I came from, my beginnings in rural Wisconsin. … My life as a priest and as a bishop is in my mind, even as I carry out my work here, is an inspiration for me. I try to never lose sight of the fact that what I do here ultimately is at the service of guiding parishes and dioceses.

Why do you think the Pope chose you to head the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura?

You’d have to ask him, but what would be the most obvious response to that question is that I am well prepared in canon law and that I worked in that tribunal for five years, from 1989-1995, when I was ordained a bishop and took the office of Bishop of La Crosse. So being an archbishop and now having more years of experience I was in a certain sense a logical choice for the position — not that there wouldn’t be many others who are, I’m sure, more able than myself. But I wouldn’t have been mostly a strange or unexpected choice for such a position.

What kind of cardinal do you hope to be or will strive to be?

Simply one who is 100% with the Holy Father, using whatever gifts God has given me to help the Holy Father, to give him any counsel he asks me. Also in daily activities, simply to be supporting and promoting what he wishes and desires. I would hope to keep that focus always before me. That’s what being a cardinal is all about.

John Burger is the Register’s news editor

Pope's comments do not change teaching on condom use - Cardinal Pell

Statement from Cardinal Pell, Archbishop of Sydney, updated at 4pm on 22 November 2010

In Catholic Diocese of Parramatta

HIV –AIDS is wreaking havoc in Africa, where the Catholic Church is heavily involved in the care of those infected and their surviving family members.

In his recent interview, Pope Benedict insisted on speaking on the basic Christian and Catholic teaching on sexual activity: that such sexual activity is to be confined to the lovemaking between husband and wife. He urges abstinence from premarital and extra-marital sex and fidelity within marriage.

He also mentioned the possibility of a male prostitute using a condom against transmitting infection as a first step “in the direction of moralization”.

This is a delicate and difficult area, sometimes producing tragic consequences. I have not seen the German original of what the Pope said, but hard and exceptional cases can encourage bad law making.

Much work needs to be done to bring consistent, Catholic light into this grey and vexed area, while ensuring that the Catholic moral framework on sexuality remains intact.

I also endorse the brief statement of Bishop Anthony Fisher OP as faithfully representing Catholic thinking.

No change to Church teaching on condom use - Bishop Anthony Fisher OP

Statement by Bishop Anthony Fisher OP, Bishop of Parramatta, 22 November 2010

In Catholic Diocese of Parramatta

In his forthcoming book-length interview Pope Benedict XVI re-emphasises Catholic teaching that fidelity within marriage and abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage is the only morally permissible approach to chaste living. It is also the only practicable solution to the HIV-AIDs epidemic.

The Holy Father calls on the faithful to “fight against the banalisation of sexuality” which treats sex as a mere recreational drug, and to seek instead “the humanisation of sexuality” as the expression of marital love.

Despite some misinterpretation in the international media, the Pope has not deviated from or altered in any way Catholic teaching on the intrinsic wrongness of contraception or on reserving sexual intercourse (‘the marital act’) to marriage, that is of a man and a woman.

Pastors have long recognised that in cases such as homosexual intercourse, conception and marital acts are not at issue. Using a condom in this situation is clearly not contraception. It is clear that even here the goal must be to move the individual to living a truly ‘humane’, that is a chaste and loving, sexual life.

The Pope suggests that sometimes “as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom” to protect his client from disease, this might be a sign of an awakening moral responsibility. But using condoms, the Pope insists, is still not “a real or moral solution”.

The Pope and Condoms - John M. Haas

by John M. Haas

In Catholic Education Resource Center

It is difficult teaching moral truth in a day of instant communication and media manipulation.

The publication of a series of interviews with Pope Benedict XVI by the journalist Peter Seewald, Light of the World, is a case in point. In reading an advance copy of the book, one knew the mass media would immediately focus on one thing and one thing alone: the Pope's remarks on condom use and the struggle to prevent the spread of AIDS.

Indeed, the first headline that I encountered after excerpts of the book were released was: "Pope OK's Condoms".

Briefly, this is what the Pope actually said: Condoms are neither the effective way nor the moral way to stop the spread of AIDS (the Church "does not regard it as a real or moral solution"). He also said, "we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms". He states that the AIDS epidemic has resulted in large measure from the irresponsible and selfish use of sexuality. Then he expresses hope for the conversion of a sinner by suggesting that the use of a condom MIGHT be an expression of his concern for the "other". This might be seen therefore a first step toward loving and respecting the "other" so that he would eventually embrace a life of either fidelity or abstinence, the only approaches which have truly proven to be successful.

There has been debate for years over the moral legitimacy of the use of condoms by discordant couples, that is, couples in which one member is HIV positive or has AIDS. There are two fundamental moral problems which stoke this debate. First of all, taking into account the high failure rate of condoms, would it be morally licit for a spouse to put his wife's health and even life at risk for the sake of sexual intercourse? It is difficult to see how this could be justified. The marital act is to be love-giving and open to life. In the case of a spouse with AIDS, intercourse even with a condom could well be a potentially death-dealing act.

The second fundamental moral problem has to do with the contraceptive character of condoms. It is true that the use of a condom in a single case might diminish the risk of the transmission of the AIDS virus but it could also have a contraceptive effect. The Church's unchanging and unwavering position on the immorality of contraception is well known. But there were some moral theologians who tried to argue that the condom was not being used to contracept but rather to lower the risk of spreading AIDS. The contraceptive effect was merely foreseen but not intended. With such an understanding, it was argued, the use of the condom would not actually be an act of contraception but of disease prevention.

The matter continues to be debated among theologians but the more common opinion among moralists faithful to the magisterium is that the use of the condom would be wrong because it could endanger the life of the spouse and could be an act of contraception.

It is interesting that the Pope entirely sidesteps this particularly vexing debate by the example he uses to consider condom use. He reflects on the decision of a (presumably homosexual) male prostitute to use a condom. In such a case, there can be no question of the contraceptive effect of the condom. Consequently his example does not relate to the debate over the use of condoms by discordant couples.

But interestingly the Pope does not really reflect on the question of the effectiveness of condom use in reducing the transmission of AIDS. He rather wants to reflect on the moral state of the person who would use it with the hope that that person would begin to assume moral responsibility for his sexual activity. There is no question that the Church considers acts of prostitution and homosexuality to be gravely immoral and disordered. However, the Church in her love of souls always looks for some indication that the sinner might "come to his senses". In the case at hand, the Pope says the use of a condom in a particular case MIGHT be "a first step in the direction of . . . a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed. . ."

Obviously this first POSSIBLE step in the direction of "moralization" cannot make an act of prostitution or homosexuality or contraception good. But it does indicate that the moral conscience might still be alive and might eventually bring one to conversion and new life.

A careful reading of the text could not possibly lead one to conclude that the Pope has approved condom use. He says quite explicitly: "it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection." Indeed, it can aggravate it. Prof. Edward C. Green of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at Harvard University would seem to agree with the Pope. He wrote in a recent book, Affirming Love, Avoiding AIDS (Matthew Hanley and Jokin de Irala, The National Catholic Bioethics Center, 2010), "In fact, [condom use] might actually contribute to higher levels of infection because of the phenomenon of risk compensation, whereby people take greater sexual risks because they feel safer than they really ought to because they are using condoms at least some of the time."

The interview with Pope Benedict indicates no change in Church teaching but is a renewed call for chastity and abstinence as the most effective means of fighting the spread of AIDS.

Experto vaticano explica postura del Papa sobre preservativos

MADRID, 22 Nov. 10 / 02:07 pm (ACI)

El Subsecretario del Pontificio Consejo para la Familia, P. Carlos Simón, explicó que "no hay ninguna novedad" en la postura del Papa Benedicto XVI sobre los preservativos en un nuevo libro-entrevista que será presentado este martes 23 de noviembre en el Vaticano.

En el libro "Luz del Mundo" de Peter Seewald, el Papa plantea como excepción para el uso del preservativo el caso de los varones que se prostituyen, como figura en el texto original en alemán y la traducción al inglés, que difiere de lo publicado por L’Osservatore Romano que italiano usa el término prostituta. La confusión se agravó cuando diversos medios de comunicación difundieron este fragmento del libro fuera de contexto y lo presentaron como un cambio en las enseñanzas de la Iglesia en materia de sexualidad.

En una entrevista con el diario español La Razón, el P. Simón, médico y sacerdote, recordó que el Santo Padre ya explicó en su viaje a África en 2009 la postura de la Iglesia sobre lucha contra el SIDA: la estrategia se fundamenta en la promoción de la abstinencia y la fidelidad; y preciso en las declaraciones del Papa a Sewald "no hay ninguna novedad".

"Desde el punto de vista de mi dicasterio no hay cambios: todo acto que no esté dentro del matrimonio es ya un desorden objetivo. Lo que hay que procurar es que éste sea lo menos malo posible", insistió.

"El Papa ya dijo en aquel viaje (a África) que en la lucha contra el SIDA la estrategia de la Iglesia era la abstinencia, la fidelidad y el condón. Las dos primeras son formas de luchar contra el SIDA, como señala el Papa, en el contexto de la educación y la no trivialización de la sexualidad. Como última vía escapatoria está el preservativo, en casos donde las otras dos opciones no se han podido desarrollar", explicó.

Asimismo, consideró que "se debe distinguir cuando el Pontífice dice algo de modo coloquial a cuando lo hace de manera pedagógica o en una expresión de toda su autoridad, como en una encíclica. No hay contradicción en este asunto".

"Lo que materialmente ha dicho el Papa en este libro es que en los casos en que ni la abstinencia ni la fidelidad se han podido seguir, que es por la vía que apuesta la Iglesia, existe esta última opción. Una persona puede hacer uso del preservativo de forma responsable para no contagiar ni producir un mal que dañe a la vida", como en el caso de las relaciones sexuales con un prostituto homosexual que son de suyo intrínsicamente perversas y en las que el uso del preservativo no agrava el hecho en sí.

El P. Simón subrayó que las declaraciones del Papa "entran dentro de la tradición de la teología moral de la Iglesia. Para ésta el acto sexual se entiende dentro del contexto de una relación conyugal. Ahí es donde se aplica la moralidad. Todo acto fuera del matrimonio la Iglesia lo rechaza como algo desordenadamente grave. Entramos, en un campo de la salud, se trata de un terreno donde hay un posible contagio".

El sacerdote aclaró que el pecado es tener relaciones sexuales fuera del matrimonio y "el preservativo entonces es un mal menor que evita un posible contagio. En caso de que no haya este peligro es una desfiguración de una relación ya alterada porque no olvidemos que se trata de un anticonceptivo".

Para la Iglesia, explicó, "los actos sexuales deben tener lugar entre dos cónyuges y, por tanto, cuando se realizan fuera del matrimonio tienen un desorden intrínseco. El Papa lo que dice es que en algunos casos en los que hay un riesgo seguro de contagio entonces está justificado el preservativo. Veo la novedad en el aspecto terminológico, no en la idea ni en el contexto. El Papa no ha revolucionado ninguna enseñanza de la Iglesia. Señala que no se debe banalizar la sexualidad. En el caso de que ya se haya producido un desorden, que para la Iglesia es algo grave, hay que procurar que no haya un mal aún más intenso".

Luego de comentar que la Iglesia no va a promover el uso del preservativo en la lucha contra el SIDA cuando la abstinencia y la fidelidad fallan, el P. Simón recordó que "la Iglesia sigue lo que el Papa dice cuando afirma que hay que integrar la sexualidad en la esfera del amor y de la entrega. Benedicto XVI es un gran pensador y está preocupado por conseguir que haya una armonía en el hombre. La Iglesia debe insistir en esta vía, que es la más difícil pero hace del hombre un ser auténtico, no banal".

"La Iglesia seguirá resistiendo a las presiones de quien pida que distribuya preservativos. Hay además datos científicos que señalan que la receta de la abstinencia, la fidelidad y, sólo en tercer lugar, el profiláctico, han conseguido objetivos muy positivos en la lucha contra el SIDA", añadió.

Janet E. Smith on Benedict XVI and Condoms

DETROIT, NOV. 21, 2010 (Zenit.org).- A book-length interview with Benedict XVI, due to be released on Tuesday, is already causing controversy in the public spotlight due to the Pope's comments on the use of condoms.

Some quotes from the book, "Light of the World" (Ignatius Press), were published ahead of the release date, prompting media opinions and a statement of clarification by Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office.

Janet Smith, a consultor to the Pontifical Council on the Family who holds the Father Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, and has published extensively on the topics of sexuality and bioethics, explained in this interview the source of the controversy and what the Pope is really saying.

She noted that in the book (p.119), to the charge that "It is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms," Pope Benedict replied (This paragraph is at the end of an extended answer on the help the Church is giving the AIDS victims and the need to fight the banalization of sexuality.):

"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."

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

The Holy Father replied, "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."

Smith explains in the following interview, which she sent to ZENIT, how Benedict XVI was advocating conversion, not condoms, in the striving for moral behavior.

Q: What is Pope Benedict saying?

Smith: 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 sex 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 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.

Q: So is the Holy Father saying it is morally good for male prostitutes to use condoms?

Smith: 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!

Q: Would it be proper to conclude that the Holy Father would support the distribution of condoms to male prostitutes?

Smith: 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.

Q: Is Pope Benedict indicating that heterosexuals who have HIV could reduce the wrongness of their acts by using condoms?

Smith: 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.

Il Papa, il preservativo e gli imbecilli - Massimo Introvigne

Massimo Introvigne

In CESNUR

Del libro-intervista del Papa Luce del mondo si dovrà parlare, a suo tempo, come merita. Oggi invece parliamo di imbecilli. Dalle associazioni gay a qualche cosiddetto tradizionalista, tutti a dire che il Papa ha cambiato la tradizionale dottrina cattolica sugli anticoncezionali. Titoli a nove colonne sulle prime pagine. Esultanza dell’ONU. Commentatori che ci spiegano come il Papa abbia ammesso che è meglio che le prostitute si proteggano con il preservativo da gravidanze indesiderate: e però, se si comincia con le prostitute, come non estendere il principio ad altre donne povere e non in grado di allevare figli, e poi via via a tutti?

Peccato, però, che – come spesso capita – i commentatori si siano lasciati andare a commentare sulla base di lanci d’agenzia, senza leggere la pagina integrale sul tema dell’intervista di Benedetto XVI, che pure fa parte delle anticipazioni trasmesse ai giornalisti. Il Papa, in tema di lotta all’AIDS, afferma che la «fissazione assoluta sul preservativo implica una banalizzazione della sessualità», e che «la lotta contro la banalizzazione della sessualità è anche parte della lotta per garantire che la sessualità sia considerata come un valore positivo». Nel paragrafo successivo – traducendo correttamente dall’originale tedesco – Benedetto XVI continua: «Ci può essere un fondamento nel caso di alcuni individui, come quando un prostituto usi il preservativo (wenn etwa ein Prostituierter ein Kondom verwendet), e questo può essere un primo passo nella direzione di una moralizzazione, una prima assunzione di responsabilità, sulla strada del recupero della consapevolezza che non tutto è consentito e che non si può fare ciò che si vuole. Ma non è davvero il modo di affrontare il male dell'infezione da HIV. Questo può basarsi solo su di una umanizzazione della sessualità».

Non so se il volume italiano che uscirà tradurrà correttamente «un prostituto», come da originale tedesco, o riporterà – come in alcune anticipazioni giornalistiche italiane, purtroppo ahimé anche dell’Osservatore Romano – «una prostituta». «Prostituto», al maschile, è cattivo italiano ma è l’unica tradizione di «ein Prostituierter», e se si mette la parola al femminile l’intera frase del Papa non ha più senso. Infatti le prostitute donne ovviamente non «usano» il preservativo: al massimo lo usano i loro clienti. Il Papa ha in mente proprio la prostituzione maschile, dove spesso – come riporta la letteratura scientifica in materia – i clienti insistono perché i «prostituti» non usino il preservativo, e dove molti «prostituti» – clamoroso il caso di Haiti, a lungo un paradiso del turismo omosessuale – soffrono di AIDS e infettano centinaia di loro clienti, molti dei quali muoiono. Qualcuno potrebbe dire che «prostituto» si applica anche al gigolò eterosessuale che si accompagna a pagamento con donne: ma l’argomento sarebbe capzioso perché è tra i «prostituti» omosessuali che l’AIDS è notoriamente epidemico, a prescindere dal fatto che anche in tedesco per il «prostituto» maschio che va con le donne si usa correntemente il termine «gigolo».

Stabilito dunque che le gravidanze non c’entrano, perché dalla prostituzione omosessuale è un po’ difficile che nascano bambini, il Papa non dice nulla di rivoluzionario. Un «prostituto» che ha un rapporto mercenario con un omosessuale – per la verità, chiunque abbia un rapporto sessuale con una persona dello stesso sesso – commette dal punto di vista cattolico un peccato mortale. Se però, consapevole di avere l’AIDS, infetta il suo cliente sapendo d’infettarlo, oltre al peccato mortale contro il sesto comandamento ne commette anche uno contro il quinto, perché si tratta di omicidio, almeno tentato. Commettere un peccato mortale o due non è la stessa cosa, e anche nei peccati mortali c’è una gradazione. L’immoralità è un peccato grave, ma l’immoralità unita all’omicidio lo è di più.

Un «prostituto» omosessuale affetto da AIDS che infetta sistematicamente i suoi clienti è un peccatore insieme immorale e omicida. Se colto da scrupoli decide di fare quello che – a torto o a ragione (il problema dell’efficacia, o scarsa efficacia, del preservativo nel rapporto omosessuale non è più morale ma scientifico) – gli sembra possa ridurre il rischio di commettere un omicidio non è improvvisamente diventato una brava persona, ma ha compiuto «un primo passo» - certo insufficiente e parzialissimo – verso la resipicenza. Di Barbablù (Gilles de Rais, 1404-1440) si dice che attirasse i bambini, avesse rapporti sessuali con loro e poi li uccidesse. Se a un certo punto avesse deciso di continuare a fare brutte cose con i bambini ma poi, anziché ucciderli, li avesse lasciati andare, questo «primo passo» non sarebbe stato assolutamente sufficiente a farlo diventare una persona morale. Ma possiamo dire che sarebbe stato assolutamente irrilevante? Certamente i genitori di quei bambini avrebbero preferito riaverli indietro vivi.

Dunque se un «prostituto» assassino a un certo punto, restando «prostituto», decide di non essere più assassino, questo «può essere un primo passo». «Ma – come dice il Papa - questo non è davvero il modo di affrontare il male dell'infezione da HIV». Bisognerebbe piuttosto smettere di fare i «prostituti», e di trovare clienti. La delicatezza del confessore nel trovare «strade umanamente percorribili» per trattare i casi pratici più delicati di applicazione della dottrina cattolica – che però non muta – in tema di anticoncezionali, evocata dal Papa in altra parte del libro-intervista, non c’entra con il brano che stiamo discutendo sul «prostituto». È questo il brano che è stato sbattuto in prima pagina e ha innescato la spirale perversa di commenti frettolosi pubblicati prima di sapere di che cosa diamine si stesse parlando. Qui, però, dove stanno la novità e lo scandalo se non nella malizia di qualche commentatore? Al proposito, vince il premio per il titolo più assurdo il primo lancio della Associated Press, versione in lingua inglese (poi per fortuna corretto, ma lo trovate ancora indicizzato su Yahoo con questo titolo): «Il Papa: la prostituzione maschile è ammissibile, purché si usi il preservativo». Solo gli imbecilli scambiano il Papa con Marrazzo, anche se entrambi vivono a Roma.

El Vaticano dice que las palabras del Papa no reforman o cambian las ensenanzas de la Iglesia

In ReligiónenLibertad

El Vaticano ha insistido este domingo en el carácter «excepcional» del uso del preservativo, después de que el Papa se haya declarado dispuesto a admitir su utilización «en ciertos casos».

En un comunicado, vuelve a subrayar que su utilización «no es la solución del problema».

Asimismo, el Vaticano ha dicho este domingo que las palabras del Papa sobre el uso del preservativo, que lo justifica en "algunos casos", no son "un cambio revolucionario", sino una "visión comprensiva" para llevar a una humanidad "culturalmente muy pobre hacia un ejercicio responsable de la sexualidad" .

Así lo manifestó el portavoz vaticano, el jesuita Federico Lombardi, en un comunicado, en el que aseguró que las manifestaciones de Benedicto XVI "no reforman o cambian las enseñanzas de la Iglesia, sino que las reafirman, en la perspectiva del valor y de la dignidad de la sexualidad humana como expresión del amor y la responsabilidad".

Lombardi precisó que, con sus palabras, el Papa no justifica moralmente el ejercicio "desordenado" de la sexualidad, pero considera que el uso de profiláctico para disminuir el riesgo del contagio del Sida "es un primer acto de responsabilidad, un primer paso hacia una sexualidad más humana".

A continuación reproducimos la Nota vaticana sobre las palabras del Papa y el preservativo:

Al final del capítulo décimo del libro "Luz del mundo", el Papa responde a dos preguntas sobre la lucha contra el sida y el uso del preservativo, preguntas que se remontan a la discusión que siguió a las palabras pronunciadas por el Papa sobre este tema en su viaje a África, en 2009.

El Papa confirma con claridad que en esa ocasión no había querido tomar posición sobre el problema de los preservativos en general, sino que había querido afirmar con fuerza que el problema del sida no se puede resolver únicamente con la distribución de preservativos, pues es necesario hacer mucho más: prevenir, educar, ayudar, aconsejar, estar junto a las personas, ya sea para que no se enfermen, ya sea porque se han enfermado.

El Papa observa que también en el ámbito no eclesial se ha desarrollado una conciencia análoga, como lo demuestra la llamada teoría "ABC" (abstinence, be faithful, condom), en la que los dos primeros elementos (abstinencia y fidelidad) son mucho más determinantes y fundamentales para la lucha contra el sida, mientras que el preservativo se presenta en última instancia como una escapatoria, cuando faltan los otros dos elementos. Por tanto, debe quedar claro que el preservativo no es la solución del problema.

El Papa amplía después su mirada e insiste en el hecho de que concentrarse únicamente en el preservativo significa banalizar la sexualidad, que pierde su significado como expresión de amor entre personas y se convierte en una "droga". Luchar contra la banalización de la sexualidad es "parte del gran esfuerzo para que la sexualidad sea valorada positivamente y pueda ejercer su efecto positivo en el ser humano en su totalidad".

A la luz de esta visión amplia y profunda de la sexualidad humana y de su problemática actual, el Papa reafirma que "naturalmente la Iglesia no considera los preservativos como la solución auténtica y moral" al problema del sida.

De este modo, el Papa no reforma o cambia la enseñanza de la Iglesia, sino que la reafirma, poniéndose en la perspectiva del valor y de la dignidad de la sexualidad humana, como expresión de amor y responsabilidad.

Al mismo tiempo, el Papa considera una situación excepcional en la que el ejercicio de la sexualidad representa un verdadero riesgo par la vida del otro. En ese caso, el Papa no justifica moralmente el ejercicio desordenado de la sexualidad, pero considera que la utilización del preservativo para disminuir el peligro de contagio es "un primer acto de responsabilidad", "un primer paso en el camino hacia una sexualidad más humana", en lugar de no utilizarlo, poniendo en riesgo la vida de la otra persona. En este sentido, el razonamiento del Papa no puede ser definido como un cambio revolucionario.

Numerosos teólogos moralistas y autorizadas personalidades eclesiásticas han afirmado y afirman posiciones análogas; sin embargo, es verdad que no las habíamos escuchado aún con tanta claridad de los labios de un Papa, si bien de una manera coloquial y no magisterial.

Benedicto XVI nos da, por tanto, con valentía, una contribución importante para aclarar y profundizar una cuestión debatida desde hace tiempo. Es una contribución original, pues por una parte mantiene la fidelidad a los principios morales y demuestra lucidez a la hora de rechazar un camino ilusorio, como la "confianza en el preservativo"; por otra parte, manifiesta sin embargo una visión comprensiva y de amplias miras, atenta para descubrir los pequeños pasos --aunque sean sólo iniciales y todavía confusos-- de una humanidad espiritual y culturalmente con frecuencia muy pobre hacia un ejercicio más humano y responsable de la sexualidad.

[Traducción del original italiano por Jesús Colina]