Holy See in no way endorses condoms in AIDS prevention

Blogged by James Preece on 7th February 2012

It's been a while now since Pope Benedict's words in "Light of the World" about condoms. I did not personally find them very troubling because it was clear what Pope Benedict was saying, I was however troubled by the spin put out by people who wanted to claim he was saying something else. I ended up thinking that perhaps we would have been better off if he had said nothing on the matter at all.

By way of a reminder, he said...

Pope Benedict: 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.

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

Pope Benedict: She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, 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.

[link]

If we read the words in the proper order we see that Pope Benedict qualifies his sentences very well. He speaks only of a "first step" or "a movement toward" (e.g. not an arrival at a destination) and he refers to "intentions" and not actions. In short, he is a million miles from saying "using a condom to prevent aids is okay"

Of course, some people find that if they throw all these words in a pan and fry them up they can make an ommelette with the word "moral" and the word "condom" in the order they want.

Dr Austen Ivereigh for example, took the Pope's words (and the resulting CDF clarification) to mean this...

There is an important line in the CDF's clarification which is likely to pass unnoticed but which is, I believe, central to the Vatican strategy -- and I am sure it is a strategy -- for breaking the ice over this issue. It is that Pope Benedict's words do not signify any change "in the pastoral practice of the Church".

In other words, urging a promiscuous infected person to at least use a condom -- assuming that they are not ready or willing or able (and remember, many prostitutes in Africa sell their bodies to feed their children) -- is Catholic pastoral practice. That pastoral counsel is the beginning of a journey, as the Pope says -- the start of choosing life over death, morality over immorality.

[link]

See that? Urging condom use is "Catholic pastoral practice", as I said at the time never have I seen such flagrant abuse of the phrase "in other words".

The Pope's words above relate specifically to the intentions of somebody who chooses a wrong method but at least is taking the first step towards realising there might be a right choice. Dr Ivereigh thinks that means we should urge people to use the wrong method.

Anyways, I mention all this today because while the above has been spread far and wide by the promoters of ambiguity, Dr Ivereigh and co have been strangely silent about the following which was recently submitted to the United Nations by the Holy See...

The Holy See reaffirms its reservations with the Resolution, especially regarding its references to “sexual and reproductive health” since the Holy See does not consider abortion or abortion services to be a dimension of such terms and regarding the term “family planning” as the Holy See in no way endorses contraception or the use of condoms, either as a family planning measure or in HIV/AIDS prevention programmes.

[link]

In other words (ahem) the Holy See does not endorse contraception or the use of condoms in HIV/AIDS prevention programmes.

Strange - if urging condom use is Catholic pastoral practice then why on earth is the Holy See going to the trouble of telling the UN that the use of condoms in HIV/AIDs prevention programmes is in no way endorsed?

Rate this blogentry: + -

+22

This Item Tagged With:

Reader Comments

+23

Oliver McCarthy said...

What Austen Ivereigh says is the opposite of the Catholic Church's teaching. Either he should not be head of an organisation that calls itself "Catholic Voices" or other Catholics should not be supporting it.

+21

Ben Trovato said...

James

Like you, I thought the Holy Father's words at the time were very clear: he said what he meant, and meant what he said. He was very specific and precise: a movement towards a good intention might be the start of a moral awakening. And like you I blogged on this at the time.

There was no call for 'other words' and especially not other words that misrepresented the meaning.

+19

Christopher Wright said...

'"Catholic" Voices' certainly don't often speak for this Catholic, but rather for the shorn lamb for whom the doctrinal wind must be tempered.

Their twice-amended piece on the UCLA brouhaha is an example of their rushing into print, or pixels, and subsequently trying to seamlessly backtrack.

epsilon said...

James Preece said:
"I ended up thinking that perhaps we would have been better off if he had said nothing on the matter at all."

I didn't/don't agree with you James on this simply because I believe some - more like many - people who would never have listened to BXVI before, might have found a way in to even entertaining the idea of listening to him because they would perceive that in their eyes - "maybe he's not totally inflexible after all!".

As a result these people would be able to take "a first step in a movement toward a different way", a Catholic way, Pope Benedict's way of seeing things...

New Friend said...

Leaving aside the wisdom of the Catholic approach to this matter for the moment it is nevertheless true that the perception which arose at the time was of the beginning of a change in direction on this issue. That this was greated with such enthusiasm and hope from so many ought, in my opinion, give pause for some reflected thought.

Those, like me, who believe the current Catholic attitude on this issue not simply to be wrong, but unwise to the point of being both dangerous and irresponsible, cannot be blamed for hoping that at last we had a Pope who might begin to lead you towards a common sense approach which would enable lives to be saved and enriched. That he allowed such a hope to erupt, only to see it dashed on the rocks of tradition, has made us very wary of this man. He appeared to be a reformer. Now we know he wants you to remain with your feet secured in the past and unable to move forward. He might be YOUR man, but he is certainly not the one the world needs.

This Pope identifies some of the problems well enough, but proposes solutions which are totally unattainable in the real world. It is said that politics is the art of the possible. What Benedict proposes is impossible and not to realise that is a wicked disservice to the peoples of the world.

+21

Paul Priest said...

New Friend you seem to indicate that you haven't really got a clue what the Church teaches or what the Holy Father really said.

a] Condoms are not safe - The Cochrane report of 2007 revealed they only achieve an 80% risk reduction in hiv seroconversion.
Bearing in mind that the epidemiology of the hiv virus reveals even after direct contact it is very difficult to contract [intravenous injection is only 90% risk - passive homosexuals 1 in 200, women 1 in 1000, heterosexual men 7 in 10,000, active homosexuals 1 in 2,000] When coming in direct contact with the virus it is 82 times easier to contract the common cold.
1-in-8 homosexual men in London are now hiv+; 70% claim they contracted this while using a condom [even if we apply the general 'deceit' moderator of 60% lying/deluded to these figures it still leads to 28% of gay men validly claiming they contracted hiv while engaging in 'safer sex' activities. Yes most condomistic hiv transmission is through condom misuse and cross-contamination - not condom-integrity-failure; but nevertheless when one considers that the spanish safety regulations for the most-used european extra-safe polyurethane condom was only 95.5% until 2009 & only 40% greater afterwards; it reveals that anyone relying upon a condom is playing a drawn-out version of russian roulette.

b] Catholic teaching is clear. Not only is sexual activity solely moral within marriage; anyone with hiv MUST abstain from sexual intercourse - to engage in such activity would risk the health & potentially the life of a partner. It violates the fifth commandment.

c] Now we hit the crunch - the plain and simple fact that Catholic Moral theology is in chaos - and the promotion and transmission of it is so lacking that many Catholics simply do not know what the Church teaches - therefore they engage in wishful thinking and 'best guess' speculation. Ironically the best guess fallacies usually veer off into one of two camps - the 'severe' donatist and the 'arrogant' pelagian.

d] Luke Gormally of the Linacre/Anscombe centre argues quite cogently in line with humanae vitae [and Elizabeth Anscombe] that contraception is ALWAYS intrinsically morally disordered and ALWAYS aggravates the inherent sinfulness of extra-marital activity.

e] BUT if one is already engaging in a gravely sinful act - and knowing that either any conceived baby would be aborted or there is a risk of transmission of a deadly virus [both grave transgressions against the fifth commandment] in order to prevent an objective moral evil - one must diminish the gravity of the sin and that would require risk reduction; non-agravation of the grave sin and condom use [even though sinful] would become mandatory.

f] Bear in mind that this is in no way endorsed, advocated, promoted or approved - it is gravely sinful in every way but we are talking about preventing the aggravation of an already grave sin.

g] Now comes the problem - the GREAT LIE!!
Allow me to quote it from Austen Ivereigh

"In the case of HIV discordant couples, the prophylactic use of a condom is not condemned by the Church's teaching on contraception."

http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/7315/Father-Rhonheimer-responds-to-Janet-Smith.aspx

[you might want to read all of Dr Ivereigh's and my heated words - it might explain the CV position]

And at the centre of his argument is the Opus Dei moral theologian Fr Martin Rhonheimer who argues for a 'prophylactic intention'.

...and the SECOND GREAT LIE, quoted by Ivereigh, CV Peter Williams and only last week stated by CV Greg Daly [backed by CV Caroline Farrow]:

"Rome has not spoken on the issue" [implying that the issue is open and a matter for individual conscience until Rome does speak - there's also pernicious mendacious allusions to the CDF whispers of it being on the verge of considering altering its teaching on the issue before papal intervention - something which is absolutely, categorically impossible and therefore has to be untrue - despite the printed and repeatedly tweeted claims of individuals in CV - I am not stating they are lying - but that they have been seriously misinformed that the impossible was even open to being made tenable]

...when it is blatantly obvious that Rome DOES NOT NEED to say anything further on an issue which is already absolutely clear with its magisterial teaching in humanae vitae, on the condemnation of assault in the fifth commandment and in the mandatory command to never aggravate nor intensify an already grave sin with further depravity, scandal and grave matter.

To explain this further you might wish to take a look at my response to Janet Smith during her argument with Fr Rhonheimer on OSV.

http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/7298/A-response-to-Father-Rhonheimer-on-condoms.aspx

+18

Paul Priest said...

James your quote from Ivereigh hangs on that word 'promiscuous'. The indication that this is not merely one who is ever open to 'pastoral' evangelisation to abstain

i.e. one defiantly unwilling to abstain

..therefore he has the fallback that if they're going to gravely sin they MUST not aggravate it by violating the fifth as well as the sixth [and ninth] commandment. [ref Rodari comments after LoW furore]

Now Ivereigh reacts violently to Gormally's [after Anscombe] position that contraception by its very nature aggravates the sinful nature of extra-marital lovemaking and if ever used in marital lovemaking violates the sanctity of the unifying and procreative natures inherent in the act.

Ivereigh [after Rhonheimer] argues that prophylaxis countermands this and should be considered...[i.e. he mistakenly believes that Gormally would endorse that a 'promiscuous' person with hiv should engage in condomless sex]

...he considers this a monstrous barbarity - and reveals that he doesn't understand that in commission of sin the commission of a secondary act or its opposite willed non-commission can BOTH aggravate the gravity - using a condom scandalises the sanctity of the act; non-use can lead to the violation of the fifth commandment. One is the commission of an intrinsic moral disorder, the other the commission of an objective evil.

One must never aggravate and compound the gravity of a sin.

Therefore Ivereigh arrives at a false conclusion - that not doing wrong is axiomatically right.

...that commission of a lesser evil [non-aggravation of a sin] is axiomatically 'non-wrong action' and can therefore be extrapolated into marriage.

Now to play fair - Ivereigh does qualify it with :

"That does not make its use right or moral -- there are all kinds of prudential considerations involved -- but the Church accompanies people in that position all the time, and will help people make the right moral choices. Until there is an authoritative clarification from Rome on this, that pastoral approach is the valid, orthodox one. If Gormally and others wish to claim that this is subversive of Catholic sexual teaching, then that is their opinion but I find their arguments unpersuasive and, since Pope Benedict's comments, out of step with the thinking in Rome.

...but this reveals his arrant defiant ignorance on the issue - he truly thinks that His Holiness's reference to potential diminution of subjective sinfulness also affects the objective gravity of the sinfulness of the act itself - regrettably more than a few Catholic commentators and journalists thought this too - some were outraged at the thought and thought the Pope 'unwise'; others [especially at the Telegraph/Herald/Tablet] erroneously thought this was a contextual change and a 'sensitive, charitable' modifying mitigation of the Catholic position...

Unbelievable?...YES!
Major Catholic commentators and journalists truly ignorantly believed that the Church would say that anyone with hiv engaging in sex must never use a condom...

...and all because the Church said you must NEVER use a condom because you must NEVER engage in extra-marital activity.

I know - that they should be so ignorant was mind-blowingly revelatory...and a savage indictment against today's moral theologians and the apologetics of the past century

So these people thought the Pope was now saying something new...they erroneously presumed that Catholic teaching commanded a prostitute to continue risking their health & life condomless...when the Church was really saying you shouldn't be having sex period!

...and opportunists like the Tablet and Rhonheimer jumped at the chance to muddy the waters even further in the confusion.

The media and our heterodox wing decided to distort what the Pope said into advocacy for condoms as prophylaxis...

...and in jumps Rhonheimer to say 'I promised to keep silent on the issue until Rome either approved/condemned my proposition...BUT...now His Holiness seems to be moving towards my position'

..the actions of a scoundrel!

What His Holiness said meant nothing of the sort - it was a potential first step towards subjective moralisation - the objective gravity remained absolutely clear.

...but it didn't prevent Rhonheimer, and later Ivereigh; to attempt to jump on this bandwagon and repeat the perversion of Catholic teaching regarding what was sinful about contraception was the contraceptive intention - not the contraceptive [the simultaneous prophylactic] itself...The Catholic Voices book itself refers to 'Contraceptive intention' not the objective intrinsic moral disorder of the contraceptive itself. [although CV Peter Williams [absurdly] dismisses this as an 'obvious typo'- how? You tell me how these people can be so naiive and blinkered when Catholic teaching is being rewritten before their eyes?!]

[remember Valero saying the same thing repeatedly?]

Now to play fair again if we refer to the Catholic Voices book the argument has been watered down greatly to

"Abstinence is the path of greatest responsibility"

...which is NOT what the Church teaches - the Church commands - demands Abstinence - there is no other path, no other option.

...and...

"The Church urges..."

...yet again the Church doesn't urge - the Church directly COMMANDS abstinence as the ONLY moral action.

But instead of repeating the 'Rome has not spoken' lie [Rome has already spoken and does not need to speak again]
it instead refers to 'Light of the World' and declares the Pope did not address the issue so it would be 'pointless to extrapolate'....

...but by saying this it by default implies the resurgence of the lie that 'Rome has not spoken" - when it HAS!!!

...the Ivereigh/CV position remains ambiguous [and by default] heterodox in not absolutely condemning outright Rhonheimer's dangerous and scandalous speculations.

New Friend said...

Paul

Clearly you have swallowed the Catholic reasoning and "facts" hook line and sinker. That doesn't mean I have or have to. My reasoning says that whatever the failure rate (and there is a great disparity of opinion on what that truly is, despite all the Catholic claims to know the "truth") that using a barrier must be safer than not using one, asuming that you are going to have sexual contact in the first place. Of course avoiding sexual contact is a 100% certain way of avoiding a problem. If everyone followed that way the problem would disappear. No-one denies it. What is denied is whether such a situation is possible. For me, and those who think like me it most definitely is impossible so we have to find another way.

Sp please save your long, convoluted, Catholic justifications for that which makes no sense to others, to those who share your views. If people agree, and then follow your rules, within your own community you are not going to have problems. It is outside of that community that I am primarily addressing my concerns. It is simply unrealistic to expect anyone else to suddenly convert to Catholicism or change their behaviour. To suggest the solution is that they should is ridiculous. It has no more merit than suggesting that we could eliminate car accidents if we left our cars in the garage and walked everywhere. It isn't going to happen.

Condoms may not be a perfect solution. They may only be part of the solution, but they do have a role and to deny their availability to those who wish to use them is bordering on an evil act. It most certainly is not an act of love or charity towards your fellow man. If you don't want to use them, no-one will force you to. If someone does then please don't put barriers (pun intended) in their way. That, by the way, applies to anyone who wishes to use them, Catholic or non-Catholic. It specifically applies here in the Philippines where the Catholic Church is fighting the RH bill tooth and nail, using black propaganda and seeking to deny citizens, Catholic or not, access to sex eduation and free condoms for the poorest who wish to use them. No compulsion involved, they can follow their Church's advice if they want to, but the Church still objects with a campaign of hatred towards the bills proposers.

+20

Paul Priest said...

Giving out condoms and lying about their safety - endorses and promotes sexual promiscuity and a furtherance of this disease...

The stats prove it - Uganda vs Botswana , Philippines vs Thailand - decades ago both sets had identical hiv rates - then they adopted radically opposing policies in defeating the disease. Throwing condoms at the issue has proven to be deadly.

The only people who benefitted were the big Pharmaceutical companies making billions from retrovirals [with the long-term promise of a continuing supply of hiv victims] and organisations like Gutmacher which make billions from their mobile abortuaries and their processing/sale of foetal material.

Millions more people have died because of an evil ideology...
Millions of lives could AND HAVE been saved because religious & corresponding scientific principles coalesced into a real solution...it just happens to be a little less lucrative for major multinationals.

It's not my fault that I and the Church have the sanctity of life as a priority...

You New Friend have made it perfectly clear over the weeks that your priorities lie elsewhere.

New Friend said...

Paul

As soon as you mention the Thailand/Philippines comparison rates, which are so much trumpeted as a justification for the Catholic viewpoint, your argument is lost.

This is something I have some really personal knowledge about and what you have been told is totally wrong. The level of HIV infection here in the Philippines is hugely higher that the "official" figues. Why? Because it is not reported as HIV! The concept of shame here is so strong that people would rather die than bring shame on their family. As there is no money for drugs people with HIV often don't get diagnosed and their illness is categorised as being one of the many strange diseases that occur here, and no-where else. If you are going to die anyway, best to do so without shame.

Therefore to draw any conclusions based upon "official" statistics is just wrong.

It seems to me that because the Catholic Church disapproves of the use of any barrier contraception for idealogical reasons that when they were faced with the possibility that condoms might, for other reasons, help protect against HIV that this posed a threat to their position. They then sought reasons why condoms were ineffective against HIV, simply to avoid a threat to their main objection to them. Those reasons have been very effectively discredited by many reputable agencies but they are still being claimed by your Church.

The idea that condoms don't help in the fight against HIV isn't just nonsense. It is irresponsible and dangerous nonsense of which you ought to be truly ashamed. The suffering people of the world deserve better from those who say they care.

Mark Dobson said...

But any serious research would at least attempt to factor in the discrepancy which you talk about. Surely you can�t expect us to simply dismiss research per se on the basis of your personal experience (which might otherwise be termed "anecdotal evidence" - no offence intended)?

Naturally you will have questions about the objectivity of particular studies, but that�s something to address on a case-by-case basis.

New Friend said...

Mark

I credit you as the sole contributor here prepared to even consider whether the evidence upon which some of your conclusions are based is valid.

Of course I accept my experience is anecdotal, but it has been gathered over many years and includes lots of conversations with doctors and other health professionals. I am very confident that it is the true situation. I don't take any offence. Indeed I am glad to have a proper examination made of this matter so that we can have a better appreciation of the true situation and then make better decisions.

The "official" statistics here are not the result of any genuine research. They are merely the publication of those cases which are "officially" treated and recognised. I am quite sure the authorities know they are but the tip of a big iceberg but the concept of shame goes deep here. The authorities, and in particular that means the RC Church, do not want to admit the scale of the problem for to do so would be to admit to failure.

I believe I read a UN, or other NGO, report on this matter a while back which confirmed my own opinion on this. If I can find it again I will give you the reference.

Mark Dobson said...

Naturally, your conclusions too are based on evidence compiled within human limitations, and your antipathy for the teaching of the Church leaves you just as open to confirmation bias as we are.

The Church may have vested interests, but the vested interests of the pharmaceutical industry are certainly no trifling matter.

Whatever one's position on the matter, a balance has to be struck between blind faith in research on the one hand and conspiracy theories of all-powerful lobby groups on the other.

+21

Nicolas Bellord said...

Just to say how much I appreciate Paul Priest's contributions to this blog.

It seems to me that New Friend misses one particular point. He may be right in saying that using a condom reduces the risk but the message that goes out is that it is perfectly okay to have sex provided you use a condom. This encourages people to have sex when they should abstain. In the first case whatever the failure rate of condoms it seems highly probable that infection will eventually occur. In the second case you are going from a nil probability to whatever probability is inherent in condom failure. I would have thought that on purely practical grounds promoting abstinence rather than condoms is the preferable route to follow.

Further I am afraid that New Friend does not understand what can be done with the grace of God.

New Friend said...

Nicholas

What I am trying to do is find realistic solutions which work in the real world, and not theoretical solutions which only work in a land of dreams. The Catholic opinion on condom failure is not shared by many others. It is viewed by them as a biased statistic, tainted by pre-conceptions.

I have no objection to any Catholic deciding to follow a route of abstinence. That is their right, and it will work. The fact is though that no matter how much you might want it the vast majority of non-Catholics are not going to accept such a regime. It might be possible to argue that it is preferable. It is not possible to argue it is practical. Promoting impractical solutions is no solution at all. You might be able to do things "with the grace of God". Those who don't agree with you have to find another way, and you really mustn't stand in their way.

+10

Nicolas Bellord said...

New Friend: I was not referring to a Catholic view on condom failure as I do not know what the Catholic consensus on the matter is. My argument merely depends upon there being some rate of condom failure including failure by misuse. Surely we can agree that there is a measure of failure without necessarily agreeing on the rate of failure which is something that could only be established by scientific study?

Caroline Farrow said...

Loathe to get into great discussions other than to note that I do not promulgate that Rome advocates use of condoms for ANY reason. The Holy See is clear.

Where I backed Greg was when he pointed out that the Vatican has never made any statement of doctrine on the morality of those who are unmarried using prophylactics. Greg pointed out, quite correctly, that Humanae Vitae was concerned with spousal sexual relationships and I agreed with him.

I would be grateful not to be represented as in any way condoning or supporting condom use in any context. I accept the Holy Father's pronouncement that condom use might be a first step out of error.

I believe teaching is clear, but think Greg was correct in pointing out this difficult anomaly, namely the morality of unmarried couples using prophylactics has not been formally addressed in doctrine.

If someone could point out where, I would be grateful.

+17

Paul Priest said...

Although John Smeaton was sneered at by CV Peter Williams last week for citing St Thomas Aquinas on his blog when he is supposed to represent a secular organisation...perhaps the particular Thomistic teaching might assist Mrs Farrow?

Humanae Vitae already condemns extra-marital sex as intrinsically morally disordered - there is grave sin involved already.

What Mrs Farrow might not understand [and here enters St Thomas] is that both condom use AND non-condom use in the act can compound the gravity given the circumstances.

Luke Gormally explains why condom use is intrinsically morally disordered as it defiantly disregards the very nature of the act and aggravates the defiance against the sanctity of the act and further alienates the other person's dignity as well as one's own.

BUT - if any conception will be aborted or there is potential to transmit a health or life-threatening disease then the sin intensifies [St Thomas] and alters in nature towards one of violence condemned by the fifth commandment. This is not merely intrinsic moral disorder - this is actual objective evil.

Therefore irrespective of the compounding nature of the intrinsic moral disorder of engaging in condomistic sex - if the alternative is an objective evil? The condom becomes mandatory.

There is sin either way - the Church DOES NOT NEED to comment on that which is so obvious.

The grave sin is present - how it is compounded by further aggravating sin is already taught in fundamental moral theology and the Summa on the nature and mutable nature of sin as the direction and [oh dear how inappropriate to use such a word - it wouldn't work in the media!!] - its entelechy changes too!

I repeat - it is spurious, specious and scandalous to repeat this downright lie that the Church has not spoken in such regards. There is no ambiguity or anomaly. That Mr Daly and Mrs Farrow have neither been informed of the teaching nor understand the already present teaching is indicative that Catholic Voices desperately needs some orthodox moral theologians at the helm.

Caroline Farrow said...

I have much respect for Luke Gormally as an ethicist and would agree however his pronouncement isn't official doctrine unless I am mistaken.

I was simply agreeing with Greg's point that there was no explicit Church doctrine vis a vis the use of prophylactics amongst unmarried couples, that is all.

I am also quite amused although irked to be misrepresented, as not once have I ever, nor would I ever promote the use of condoms, but given that Paul does not follow me on Twitter, he very ostentatiously blocked me, it is rather baffling to discover that he is quoting me as agreeing with Ronheimer. I agreed with Greg that there does not appear to be any explicit doctrine on this.

In terms of moral theologians, this is not the standard expected of even an educated laity. The point is to communicate clearly concisely and coherently, to make a cogent and correct case for the Church. I am not sure if this is best achieved by using complex concepts and technical theological vocabulary. In my mock TV interview (which covered condoms) the very intelligent interviewer said he struggled with some of my language. Evangelisation & Reconciliation being just 2 words he didn't get, therefore I am unsure as to the merits of liberal applications of Thomist, paradigm and praxis when speaking to a largely uninformed audience.

Just my thoughts.

+12

Nicolas Bellord said...

I think CV is being very rash if they do not have a moral theologian to guide them when making pronouncements about the teachings of the Church. Surely you should seek the guidance of an orthodox theologian every time. You can then translate what they say into language readily understandable by your audience. And there is no harm in stretching your audience a bit; people are incredibly ignorant on these subjects. It might avoid the kind of embarrassment CV had yesterday in having to twice correct their statement on abortion and UCL and even now leaving it very ambiguous.

+19

Paul Priest said...

Mrs Farrow's "my position is the same as Greg's" was tweeted, commented upon...and is readily available online.

The lady knows exactly why she was blocked.

Far from being misrepresented [anyone else notice the irony?]
Mrs Farrow's position as stated by her in no way contradicts my reference.

...if she'd bothered to read what I said before commenting then perhaps she'd realise that my claims have simply been confirmed by her erroneous repetition that 'Rome has not spoken' , 'The Church has not officially proclaimed/taught etc'...

This is all becoming quite tiresome....

It's quite ironic that Mrs Farrow rebuked a fellow Catholic last week when they attempted to remind her of humanae vitae's teaching

"read it - live it - thank you very much"

When she inadvertently confirms that she simply doesn't understand humanae vitae - that my reference to Luke Gormally was his exposition on the teachings WITHIN humanae vitae - not something extraneous or supplementary to it.

I will on this rare occasion agree with Mrs Farrow that indeed when one needs to be able to communicate coherently to a wider audience one must use a corresponding less-sesquipedalian vocabulary...

But 'dumbing-down' to the language of the streets does not simultaneously mean that one is allowed to get the teaching wrong in the process!

At present in its 'positive reframing' CV's 'dumbing down' seems to be throwing out both bath and baby and leaves itself standing in a puddle of scummy bathwater...not waving - but drowning!

Having been a teacher, lecturer, catechist,director of religious education & acting head of a college rel ed dept I am fully aware of the pedagogical and catechetical necessity of seeking Oliver Wendell Holmes's "the simplicity the other side of complexity"...

Unfortunately at present Catholic Voices seems to think the simple-mindedness this side of complexity will suffice - laden with wishful thinking, ill-informed and uneducated personal opinion with ineffective & far-from comprehensive co-ordinator-fed or self-composed briefing notes on the neuralgic issues.

I have no problem with Mrs Farrow getting her groove on and hanging with her homies - she can even put her baseball cap on back-to-front and finish every sentence with a "like whatever"...

...providing she gets the Catholic teaching right!

...and doesn't dismiss, ridicule and contradict those who DO know the teaching and try to convey it. Like she was far-from-loath to do in the Denum Ellarby case on twitter in regard to myself on Quam Singulari.

In order to ensure one achieves the simplicity beyond complexity - one needs to have the informed experts able to understand it, teach it and train others significantly less-informed to be able to speak confidently about it.

I'm sure Mrs Farrow would appreciate that the blind and bland were not leading the blonde.

Caroline Farrow said...

Paul why have you blocked me on Twitter, normally considered a sign that one does not want to read another's tweets & yet continue to search for my timeline and selectively quote me?

Ah well...

Mockery of the Sacraments said...

He's not well Caroline Farrow. Granted, he isn't a jeering bully like Peter Williams, but Paul Priest isn't well.

Paul Priest said...

...only occasionally when people we both follow make comments to your illustrious self on a subject in which I may be referred to or it's quite apparent that you're alluding to some subject where I am the bone of contention.

Pray - don't fancy yourself - I have no desire to ever become one of your stalkers...

+13

Nicolas Bellord said...

+14

Nicolas Bellord said...

Catherine: You say: " I accept the Holy Father's pronouncement that condom use might be a first step out of error.".

I think this is a misrepresentation of what he said. What he said was that it might be a sign of a moral awakening. He did not say that using a condom was a good thing in the circumstances. Anaesthetising a victim before stabbing him to death may be a sign that one has some compassion but neither the anaesthetising nor the stabbing are licit.

Caroline Farrow said...

Nicholas - a first step out of moral error. When typing swiftly on a mobile, I don't have the time to be as painstakingly precise as clearly this debate demands.

epsilon said...

Talk about splitting hairs!!

It's one thing to hear this sort of comment from a 'New Friend' - but from a 'Catholic Voice'!!

+20

Paul Priest said...

James - I confronted CV Peter Williams on the Holy See's 'reclarification' of its position a few months ago when John Smeaton blogged about it; but according to PW It's not magisterial; the Holy See is merely the Vatican government - it bears no relation to any official CDF position.

So technically Catholic Voices has responded.

...but it yet again reeks of dismissal due to overscrupulous appeal to technicality while denying the words, intention and spirit of the message.

So add this to
"The Church is not against condoms" [Jack Valero],
'There is absolutely nothing wrong with somebody being homosexual' [Chris Morgan]

Civil Partnerships are not same-sex unions [and the CDF 'duty to oppose SSUs does not apply] [Greg Daly,Austen Ivereigh, Caroline Farrow, Ella Leonard,Peter Williams],

"There is absolutely nothing wrong with the LCP" {Peter Williams - who ludicrously stated that the CDF/Papal directive on Nutrition/Hydration being seen as natural care & not a removable form of clinical treatment - did not apply outside the remit of PVS!!] ,

Connexions [school regulations prevent them doing any anti-Life activities and the fact that we pay an organization which does it elsewhere isn't seen as relevant enough to deserve a comment]

...the futility of ever expecting an abortion ban and instead exerting all efforts on limit reduction...
etc etc etc
...to the lengthening list where Catholic Voices seems to be barely Catholic and certainly not our voice!

But of course my saying this will lead to my being denounced [yet again] as:

'cruel, uncharitable, divisive, offensive, creating dissension and counterproductively forming factions where there should be a unity amongst everyone on the same side'

How dare I say anyone is not being fully pro-Life? Or Pro-Life Lite? Or neither reflecting nor advocating Catholic teaching on the sanctity of Life?

[especially after all these people have done for the Pro-Life cause and how much they've sacrificed in all their efforts?]

OK: Let's make this clear:

a] ANYONE who suggests that it is ever permissible for condoms to be used with prophylactic intention in marriage among hiv serodiscordant couples; or indeed anyone who does not outrightly condemn this as a violation of the fifth commandment and does not condemn those who advocate it or those who suggest the Church has not condemned it absolutely...