CDF Clarification: Regarding certain interpretations of 'Light of the World'
Blogged by James Preece on 21st December 2010
Turns out that no actually, Pope Benedict didn't re-write the Catechism in his book length interview "Light of the World"...
The thought of the Pope has been repeatedly manipulated for ends and interests which are entirely foreign to the meaning of his words – a meaning which is evident to anyone who reads the entire chapters in which human sexuality is treated.
[...]
Some interpretations have presented the words of the Pope as a contradiction of the traditional moral teaching of the Church. This hypothesis has been welcomed by some as a positive change and lamented by others as a cause of concern – as if his statements represented a break with the doctrine concerning contraception and with the Church’s stance in the fight against AIDS. In reality, the words of the Pope – which specifically concern a gravely disordered type of human behaviour, namely prostitution (cf. Light of the World, pp. 117-119) – do not signify a change in Catholic moral teaching or in the pastoral practice of the Church.
[...]
The idea that anyone could deduce from the words of Benedict XVI that it is somehow legitimate, in certain situations, to use condoms to avoid an unwanted pregnancy is completely arbitrary and is in no way justified either by his words or in his thought.
[...]
In this situation, the Holy Father clearly affirms that the provision of condoms does not constitute "the real or moral solution" to the problem of AIDS and also that "the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality" in that it refuses to address the mistaken human behaviour which is the root cause of the spread of the virus.
[...]
Some commentators have interpreted the words of Benedict XVI according to the so-called theory of the "lesser evil". This theory is, however, susceptible to proportionalistic misinterpretation (cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis splendor, n. 75-77). An action which is objectively evil, even if a lesser evil, can never be licitly willed. The Holy Father did not say – as some people have claimed – that prostitution with the use of a condom can be chosen as a lesser evil.[...]
In conclusion, in the battle against AIDS, the Catholic faithful and the agencies of the Catholic Church should be close to those affected, should care for the sick and should encourage all people to live abstinence before and fidelity within marriage.
[link]
The key quote for me is the one I have put in bold text, that "An action which is objectively evil, even if a lesser evil, can never be licitly willed" - this was the whole point of my sarcastic parody Sin now morally justified as long as you can think of something worse...
People keep asking "if people are going to have sex with a prostitute - surely they should use a condom?" - the answer is no. You cannot use the word "should" in this situation. The action will still be objectively evil and can never be licitly willed. It is like saying "If I am going to murder three people, surely I should only murder two?"
Prostitution with a condom is still an objective evil. It cannot be licitly willed. We may not licitly will it for other people.
Reader Comments
+5
Ben Trovato said...
When I shoot my wife, I am planning to use a silencer so as not to inconvenience the neighbours. Virtuous or what?
+
+2
Nicolas Bellord said...
Ben Trovato: Does it not depend upon the reason for shooting your wife? (By the way does not the Terry Schiavo case suggest that some believe that husbands have a right to terminate their wives' lives?). If your wife is in absolute agony then your intention to end her suffering is surely a good one and such an intention may show the first glimmerings leading to a moral life. However shooting her rather than giving her aspirin is gravely wrong and the good intention in no way diminishes the intrinsic evil of the act any more than using a silencer would.
It seems to me that the CDF comment could have been better if it had distinguished between the intent and the action more clearly?
In the Catholic Herald for 10th December there is on page 5 an article about the views of a Franciscan Fr Maurizio Faggioni apparently a consultant to the CDF. However he seems to see the actual use of the condom rather than the intention not to spread AIDS as being the first step towards taking moral responsibility for one's actions. I cannot help feeling that this differs from what the CDF is now saying?
Nicolas Bellord
+
+7
Policraticus said...
I still have a problem with it being ONLY about prostitution and not ALL promiscuity despite the quote from Paul and also that "its not a REAL way to deal with the evil of HIV"
Meaning. But it is A way?
Also in speaking of risk reduction it does not stress how risk aversion via multiple partners and condomistic sex actually INCREASES risk over time
Also it does not alert people to STDs and risk particularly male on male sexual activity [which the Pope's interview alluded to] NB The April 2005 issue of Sexually Transmitted Infections states:
"A rare venereal disease, a bacterial infection of the anus and genitalia, is now a 'significant problem' in European homosexual men. The disease, Lymphogranuloma venereum (LGV) is caused by an invasive strain of chlamydia. Previously known only as a rare disease in poor countries, LGV was first reported in Europe in 2003 when an outbreak was detected among 100 gay men in Rotterdam." The risk aversion behaviour of this high risk group need to be reminded of the sin that cries to heaven for vengeance if they're going to begin a path 'towards a moralisation'.
The NOte does not say how one can be an HIV carrier for years and go undiagnosed and for whom no amount of condom use can protect them from an infection they are already carrying.
Nor does it emphatically forbid Catholic aid agencies or certain missionaries in such agencies or working individually from facilitating in or having material cooperation in condom distribution
So its what this clarification does NOT say that is significant. I also profoundly disagree with the term "natural family planning" a term conjured up by Planned Parenthood in the 70s which has become Catholic currency in the birth control debate. Natural fertility awareness is far more in keeping with what ought to be an authentic reflection of H vitae and certainly is more in tune with the translation of the editio typica of HV "conscious
Parenthood" rather than the much used flawed rendition "responsible parenthood".
so one is bound to ask does the 'Note' from the CDF about a non-authoritative/magiserial book interview which has created a lot of unnecessary confusion meet the following authoritative criteria?
“The People of God has particular need of the intervention and assistance of the Magisterium when internal disagreements arise and spread concerning a doctrine that must be believed or held, lest it lose the communion of the one faith in the one Body of the Lord (n2)
..it follows that the faithful are in no way permitted to see in the Church merely a fundamental permanence in truth which, as some assert, could be reconciled with errors contained here and there in the propositions that the Church's Magisterium teaches to be held irrevocably, as also in the unhesitating assent of the People of God concerning matters of faith and morals. “(n4)
Mysterium Ecclesiae: Declaration in Defense of the Catholic Doctrine on the Church Against Certain Errors of the Present Day Issued by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith June 24 1973
Conclusion
Perhaps the Pope will realise how taking "an even greater risk" (Lombardi) with the Seewald interview than the "enormous risk" (Lombardi) he publicly admitted to over the book "Jesus" that such a risk has already seriously back fired as evidenced by the worldwide confusion among the faithful (many of whom are already poorly formed in their moral conscience over contraception because of 40 years of the effects of the notorious Washington Case, 1971 by which Cardinal O’Boyle had to readmit dissenting clergy over Humanae Vitae without them having to publicly recant under the protection of the weak interpretation of the primacy of conscience come what may.
This NOte will not lead to less condomistic sex - it will lead to more, which in turn will lead to more unwanted pregnancies, which WILL lead to more abortions. what a mess!
+