Not so very long ago a boring, sheltered, stuffy, regal, distant, conservative Pope who never ever did anything radical sat down for a book length interview and explained to the world that condoms are wonderful and their use should be urged.

Remember that one?

I do. Though I remember it slightly differently. I remember that Pope Benedict said that "in the intention" (e.g. not in the condom) there was "a first step in the direction of" (e.g. not an arrival at) "toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed". Note that the awareness is moved towards something.

This is a million miles from saying that the act itself is made good by the presence of a condom, or that adding a condom to the act is a good thing. In fact, to make himself extra clear, Pope Benedict added that condom use "is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection" and that condoms were not to be regarded as "a real or moral solution".

Properly understood I thought that was quite reasonable, though it was a bit naive of Benedict to think he could say something so subtle without his words being abused.

Within hours, the BBC headline read "Pope condones condom use" and our friend Austen Ivereigh went on to say that "urging a promiscuous infected person to at least use a condom" was now "Catholic pastoral practice."

Note the contradiction - Pope Benedict said condom use was not "a real or moral solution". Austen Ivereigh heard those words and thought "ah, I get it - condom use must be Catholic pastoral practice". This is a man who, if you believe the rumours, can even tie his own shoelaces.

That didn't suprise me. What suprised me was that people believed him. All over the blogs I saw normally sensible Catholics wailing and saying "Benedict has said condoms ar okay, he must have done, because The Tablet and the BBC say so". Nobody seemed to be looking at what Benedict actually said in the first place.

Please guys, don't fall for it again.

I mention this because Ivereigh and the gang are once again in full spin mode with their stories of limousines "shunned" and thrones "ignored". Give me a break. I don't deny that Pope Francis rode on the bus with the other cardinals and chose to greet them standing.. but shunning? ignoring?

Those meanings were added by the man who took "not a real or moral solution" and turned it in to "Catholic pastoral practice".

Then they tell us Pope Francis "spontaneously" stroked a dog. Stroking a dog? Ooooh how down to earth, how radical. Because, as the fathers of the Birmingham Oratory will tell you - Pope Benedict never ever made spontaneous gestures toward animals. Or was tickling a cat behind the ears while saying "aren’t you pretty, aren’t you pretty?" not spontaneous enough?

If we are not careful, there is a real danger that everything Pope Francis does will be reported through a lens, so that what we experience through the media in England will not be the papacy of Pope Francis, but the papacy of Ivereigh, Pepinster and Mickens.

You have the internet - read Pope Francis's words directly. See what he is saying and please: Don't believe the lie that Pope Benedict was a stuffy, distant, regal Pope who always stuck to protocol. He wasn't and he didn't - but these people will re-write history if you let them.

Don't let them get away with it.

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?

If only we could get condoms and sex education to Africa... if only the nasty Pope would let us... why... then Africa could be just like New York...

NEW YORK (WABC) -- Eye-opening statistics about the rate of abortions in New York City have been released by the Health Department.

It raises questions about the effectiveness of current birth control education.

41% of all New York City pregnancies end in abortion.

The rate for minorities is even higher.

Both sides say the high abortion percentage is a crisis.

"If 41% of New York babies are aborted, with the percentage even higher in the Bronx and among our African-American babies in the world, it is downright chilling," New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan said.

[...]

Archbishop Dolan reiterated the pro-abstinence, pro-life, anti-contraceptive position of the church.

"My word, what have we done the last 30 years. There's candy bowls on people's desks with condoms, they're dropping them from airplanes, yet nothing seems to improve, so they've been on the wrong track here," Archbishop Dolan said.

[link]

41% of pregnancies ending in abortion. 41% of mothers didn't want a child but had sex anyway? Why would you do that? Oh yeah, I remember... because somebody told you that if you use contraception then you'll be "safe".

That really worked out well didn't it.

h/t Creative Minority Report

The propaganda wall is pretty well guarded, contraception is amazing and if you use it you won't get STD's and you won't get pregnant. Honest.

Every now and then there is a leak, like BBC Radio 4's "More or Less" programme on January 7th where they compared the failure rate of different forms of contraception.

"A million women for a year using other contraceptives, do we have any data on that?"

"Typical use of the pill is much higher it's 8%"

"Condoms, if you go for the typical use the failure rate is 15% which means there are 150,000 unwanted pregnancies in the first year of use for every million women"

[source: BBC iPlayer (around 2min 30sec)]

It's not the most pro-family radio show in the world, they don't question the morality of contraception, but that's the point. You can't accuse the Radio 4 More or Less team of being biased towards religious people.

The incredible failure rate is why I call comdoms a lie - condoms are advertised as something that will stop unwanted pregnancies but it doesn't. From the school nurses' point of view, if she hands out condoms to one hundred girls, she knows that fifteen of those girls will have unexpected pregnancies in the first year! Fifteen of those girls have been lied to.

Okay, okay, so the small print says that no form of contraception is 100% effective, but the impression given is always "Use a condom and everything will be fine..." when they should be saying "if all the girls in this school have sex using condoms, some of them will get pregnant, do you want it to be you?"

Would you get in to a plane with a 15% failure rate?

Wow. He’s really lost it.

He really, honestly seems to think that this is what the CDF clarification says.

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]

It's rare to see such flagrant abuse of the phrase "In other words". Ivereigh's second paragraph simply doesn't follow from the first. If there is no change "in the pastoral practice of the Church" then there is no change. That doesn't automatically make the pastoral practice whatever he thinks it is.

What the CDF clarification actually says is this...

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. The Church teaches that prostitution is immoral and should be shunned. However, those involved in prostitution who are HIV positive and who seek to diminish the risk of contagion by the use of a condom may be taking the first step in respecting the life of another – even if the evil of prostitution remains in all its gravity. This understanding is in full conformity with the moral theological tradition of the Church.

[link]

In other words (ahem) an action which is objectively evil (being promiscuous while using a condom), even if lesser evil (less evil than being promiscuous without using a condom) cannot be licitly willed.

Did you catch that Dr Ivereigh? Cannot be licitly willed.

That means you can't urge people to do it! What you have to urge people to do is to not engage in promiscuous activity in the first place. Yes, even if they are using the promiscuous activity to feed their children.

Am I heartless? Do I want the children to starve? No - this is why I give money to aid agencies! So they can help these women out of this situation - not so they can go around promoting "safe" ways for them to remain prostitutes.

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.

Raymond Cardinal Burke (whose press secretary presumably didn't get the memo about keeping quiet on this one) has weighed in on the whole Pope condom thing...

I don’t see any change in the Church’s teaching. What [Pope Benedict] is 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 …

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.

[link]

Come on guys, this is not difficult.

It's been a couple of years now since a priest told me to stop worrying about his abuse of the liturgy because "there are so many greater wrong in the world" such as "genocide, abortion and war". No kidding - he said I was to ignore anything silly at mass because at least it wasn't genocide.

I thought he was wrong, actually I thought he was a complete moron - turns out he was at the cutting edge of moral theology. That must be why Bishop Drainey made him a Canon.

Regardless of what Pope Benedicts words on condoms might have actually been, you know, what they actually mean when you read them, it turns out that he was actually speaking in a clever code that only people much cleverer than me can understand. What he actually mean't was this: If you are going to do something evil but you find a way to lessen the damage a bit then you are morally justified.

This is fantastic.

You see, I was going to go down the road and beat an old lady to death with a cricket bat but I won't do that - I will beat my wife instead and leave her alive. Because I intend to reduce the amount of death and suffering involved I am morally justified! Hooray!

Then I reckon I might go to the shops and steal loads and loads of beer. Oh wait, I intend to reduce the amount of revenue lost, I'll only steal a few cans. I am morally justified! After I drink the beer my wife will probably have locked me out of the house (after the beating) so I will probably go and rape someone... hmm, that might cause suffering. In my intention to reduce suffering I will use a prostitute instead. Using a prostitute instead of rape is now morally justified!

None of you can say anything about it because I haven't committed genocide, had an abortion or started a war so to be honest, I've not really done anything wrong at all. I'm taking steps towards rightness!

Christianity just got so much more exciting.

Clarification:

Apologies, I thought this was clear but perhaps it is not. These days a lot of people arrive at my blog via google etc and read posts in isolation. This blog post makes little sense on it's own.

My point here is that many people are saying that Pope Benedict said that choosing one evil over another was "morally justified". I don't see how choosing any evil can ever be "morally justified" simply because somebody can think of a worse one. Hence the blog post above which is a sarcastic parody of that view.

They say that choosing fornication with a condom is morally justified because at least it isn't fornication without a condom. They might as well say that stealing four cans of beer is justified because at least it isn't five.

It is the intention to reduce harm that Pope Benedict specifically identified as a step towards a different way of living sexuality.

Alexander Des Forges is Archbishop Vincent Nichol's press secretary. He also seems to be involved with the Catholic Communications Network whose email address he used to send the following to most (if not all) of the diocesan communications officers in the country, instructing them not to "get involved".

Sent: Sunday, 21 November, 2010 10:25:55

Subject: FW: Background notes for guidance on the issue of what Pope Benedict said re. condoms

These are background notes for guidance on the issue of what Pope Benedict said re condoms.

Media reports are stating that this is a major change in Catholic teaching (I don’t think that is the case but the tone is significant and is clearly a pointer to the way thinking on the issue is going). That would be for the Holy See to say so we should not get involved in those conversations. I think the reporting has been fair, but the lead on this should come from the Holy See rather than statements from us. The guidance below can be used to help reporters factually and put the comments in some context.

Best wishes

Alexander

The media reporting has been fair - we should not get involved.

The Pope will just have to deal with this on his own?

Wow.

Somebody should have told the bloggers. We've witnessed widespread misquoting, misrepresentation and subsequent confusion. We've seen headlines like "Pope Benedict says that condoms can be used to stop the spread of HIV" (here) which definitely do not fairly represent what he actually said.

Will any of the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales be doing their bit to counter the media narrative? Will they like Cardinal Burke be helping to clarify what Pope Benedict actually said?

No. Because Vincent Nichol's media man has told them not to.

The world has gone mad it really has. I expected the media to misrepresent to Pope - that goes without saying, but all over the internet there are people I highly respect saying things that are, as far as I can see, plain wrong.

Reading the original text...

Here are the relevant passages from the Ignatius press website:

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.

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

She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

[link]

This all seems quite reasonable to me and nowhere near as exciting as the headlines might suggest.

What Pope Benedict did not say...

Damian Thompson has said that Pope Benedict “did say that the use of condoms was justified in certain circumstances. No he didn’t. He also did not say “condoms use is not always bad” or “if people are going to have sex anyway they should at least use a condom”. He didn’t say any of those things.

I’ve heard Catholics doing everything from praising Pope Benedict for saying these things to criticising him and it’s all absurd because as far as I can see he didn’t say any of them!

Moralisation - I do not think it always means what you think it means...

There is a real ambiguity with this word. It can mean “to make morally right” as a bad thing can undergo moralisation and become a good thing but that is not always what the word means. Take a quick glance at a dictionary and you will discover that moralising can also mean “to think and speak about morals”.

This is important because if you look at the text, Pope Benedict qualifies his “first step in the direction of a moralization” as being a “step on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants”. It is very clear he is not saying “a step on the way toward a morally right situation”.

His “step” is a step towards thinking about rightness, not a step towards rightness. This is an important distinction.

A handy analogy might be a conversation about chess. A player might make one bad move or they might make a different bad move and I might say “in choosing one bad move over another they are making a step towards thinking about chess”. I wouldn’t be saying anything about whether one of the bad moves was better than the other.

It’s in the intention...

Pope Benedict then goes on to say that using a condom is the first step towards a more human sexuality... doesn’t he? No wait. He actually says this: “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.”

There are two things going on here: 1) A man is intending to reduce the risk of infection. 2) The man is putting on a condom. In which of these things does the Pope say there may be a first step toward a more human way of living sexuality?

If you answered “in the putting on of a condom” then you can’t read.

It’s in the intention! Not in the action... He clearly says “there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step...” and not “there can be nonetheless, in the putting on of a condom, a first step...” Again, this is a major difference.

Pope Benedict is not saying anything here about the act of using a condom. He speaks only about the intention. It is quite possible to have good intentions and do something very wrong. For example, many people these days intend to reduce suffering (very admirable) but unfortunately they choose to do so by killing the elderly and the unborn (not admirable at all).

So what does he say about condoms?

Once we remove all the sentences about steps towards thinking about morality, intentions etc we are only really left with this...

1) Condoms are “not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection”
2) Condoms are not “a real or moral solution”

That’s all folks.

Being very careful about the language we use...

I’ve already emailed one or two fellow bloggers about this. We must be very careful not to write that the Pope has said that using a condom “is a step towards a more human sexuality”. Pope Benedict didn’t say that. He only said using a condom was a step towards thinking about morality, then he said that the intention to reduce infection was a step towards a more human sexuality.

This is why I think Fr Lombardi at the Vatican press office made a mistake. Given how many people are saying Pope Benedict made a mistake I think I can get away with suggesting Fr Lombardi slipped up. He issued a clarification which said that the Pope “believes that the use of condoms to reduce the risk of infection is a "first step on the road to a more human sexuality”, rather than not to use it and risking the lives of others”

That is simply not what the Pope said. The Pope didn’t say “the use of condoms” is a first step. He said “in the intention to reduce infection, there is a first step”. A big difference. I’ve seen quite a few well meaning bloggers repeat the same mistake. Indeed, this is where Fr John Boyle goes wrong when he says “Holy Father, since you allow me the freedom to do so, I respectfully disagree. I cannot see how the introduction of a condom into sodomic relations is in any way a first step in a movement toward a more human way of living sexuality.

The fact is that the Holy Father didn’t say the “introduction of a condom” was a first step toward a more human way of living sexuality. Rather, he said that there was “in the intention to reduce infection” a step towards a more human way of living sexuality.

The consequences of all this...

While I don't think the Pope said anything wrong, he certainly hasn’t done me any favours.

It is now almost certain that the “Catholic” school my child attends will distribute contraception. They will argue that teenagers will have sex anyway and Pope Benedict said that it is better to use a condom than not to use one. I will argue about it as above and they will tell me that if there was a problem surely the Bishop would say something, I will write to the Bishop, he will refer me to CES who will refer me to the Bishop again who will tell me that he has every confidence in our excellent (Ofsted said so) schools. Everybody will tell me that I obviously lack charity.

Of course, that would probably have all happened anyway.

Just to be extra clear:

1) Pope Benedict said that using a condom can be a first step towards thinking about right and wrong and not that it is a step towards rightness. He most definitely did not say that using a condom is ever justified.

2) Pope Benedict said that in the intention to reduce infection there may be a step towards a more human sexuality. He most definitely did not say that putting on the condom was a step towards a more human sexuality.

I should add that as others have pointed out this is an interview and not a teaching document. We are free to disagree with it. In another part of the book Pope Benedict even says himself that we are free to disagree with him on this - I just happen to think he is right on this one. I certainly don’t think others are wrong just because they disagree with the Pope, I just think they are wrong about what they think he said.