I don't know if you've been following the adventures of "Stand Up For Vatican II"? Or should I say "Stand Up 4 Vatican 2" (so trendy). I've not blogged about them (much) because I hate drawing attention to these people who you probably wouldn't have even heard of if I hadn't mentioned it.

In short, they are a group of the usual suspects trying to bring us all back to the 1960's. They are all terribly worried about the new translation and all the other stuff Pope Benedict is encouraging. They held a huuuuge national meeting in London, only 200 people turned up. More people than that visit this blog every day.

An account of that meeting (saying how wonderful it all was) appeared in The Tablet. Somebody else who was there wrote a letter to The Tablet in response but The Tablet wouldn't print it (for some reason). Anyhow, it's found it's way in to my hands so I will print it...

Dear editor,

In his letter (Lack of nurtured Catholics, 6th February 2010) Frank Regan makes a number of claims about the Stand up for Vatican II meeting which don't tally with my memory, or the detailed notes I took of the event.

First, if Frank Regan thinks the meeting he chaired was a "significant experience of an inclusive church", he needs to get out more. In contrast to the multi-ethnic, socially-diverse reality which is the Catholic Church in the Britain, the meeting's attendees were all white, mostly aged over 70 and in the main middle class.

Secondly, when he claims that those present spoke "without rancour, with love for their church" he is being economical with actualité. One of the speakers, Sister Myra Poole, recently publically compared Pope Benedict XVI to BNP leader Nick Griffin. As an active anti-fascist whose great grandfather was murdered by Nazis in Dachau, I find that comparison contemptible. At the meeting she gave a vainglorious speech, much of which involved her praising herself. When she wasn't doing that she was delivered an paranoid Dan Brownesque rant about the supposed influence Opus Dei has at the Vatican, complaining that the Vatican caused a lot of trouble at the World Council of Churches, insisting that "misogyny is so deep in this church" and saying that she should tell her congregation that if they get anything from the Vatican "they should bin it". That's not my definition of speaking without rancour, with love for the Church.

It's true that the laity were spoken of in disparaging terms as "knowing nothing" at the meeting but such sentiments are a function of the fact that groups like Catholics for a Changing Church which organised the meeting have little, if any, grassroots support in British parishes.

That should surely be the last nail in the coffin of Stand Up 4 Vatican 2. They are an irrelevance and a nasty one at that. Can it be true... did a Nun, Sister Myra Poole really compare Pope Benedict to the leader of the BNP?

From Sister Myra Poole SNDdeN

Sir, — I am deeply ashamed and personally dissociate myself from the actions of Pope Benedict XVI, supported by the Archbishop of Westminster, the Rt Revd Vincent Nichols, over the proposal of Personal Ordinates for those An­glicans who convert to Rome on the question of women Bishops.

I know I speak for many others as well. The papacy has shown scant courtesy to the members of its sister Church, and publicly insulted the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The situation of women in the RC Church is dire, but in spite of that we have run Catholic Women’s Ordina­tion for nearly 20 years, and with some considerable success.

Many people may not know that Archbishop Nichols was the Church’s representative on the National Board of Catholic Women (NBCW) in the 1990s, and it was he who suggested the title of a booklet published by the NBWC, Do Not Be Afraid, on the position of women in Church and society. If only he had taken this title to heart, as many of us have done, women would now be in a much better position.

The details of this proposal have yet to unfold; but I think this action could backfire badly on the reputa­tion of the papacy and the RC Church, especially in England. The idea that this Pope is determined to work towards Christian unity is a myth. This proposal did not come from the Council for Christian Unity in Rome, who, I understand, were not in favour of this action, but from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by Cardinal Levada.

The only unity Pope Benedict XVI and his advisers want is the unity with those who are “right-wingers”, to use a political term. If the Pope had to appear on the BBC’s Question Time, he would get an even worse reception than the British National Party leader.

The question now for RCs who have a much greater understanding of what Church should and could be is openly to call these present actions of this papacy to account in the light and spirit of Vatican II. With others, I wait to see how this situation will unravel.

MYRA POOLE
Catholic Women’s Ordination
210 Compass House
Smugglers Way, London SW18

[link]

So there you have it. It's not quite as bad as the Nun who was operating as an escort at an abortion clinic but it's leaning in the same direction. Do the SNDdeN have nothing to say?

While we're on the subject of Stand Up 4 Vatican 2, don't forget to check out Mullier Fortis' post on one of the ways they operate...

I have seen an email from Bernard Wynne calling for members of the group to send letters and petitions to their diocesan bishops, giving suggested wording. Particularly interesting was the instruction to have about 10 names actually on the letter to the bishop, with a statement to indicate that several other people had also appended their names - and to have these extra names recorded separately. This is, I am told, a popular political manoeuvre, as these extra names have not necessarily seen the exact wording of the letter being sent...

[link]

It's all done with mirrors...

Ad Limina a bit stressful was it?

[Image Source]

Pope Benedict sums up everything that is wrong with the Catholic Church in England and Wales...

In a social milieu that encourages the expression of a variety of opinions on every question that arises, it is important to recognize dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate.

It is the truth revealed through Scripture and Tradition and articulated by the Church’s Magisterium that sets us free.

link

In other words... Goodbye Terry Prendergast?

Back in January 2008 I blogged about a chapter of the book Spirit of the Liturgy by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI).

In that book he writes that...

a common turning to the east during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential. This is not a case of something accidental, but of what is essential. Looking at the priest has no importance.

And he makes a suggestion...

Where a direct common turning toward the east is not possible, the cross can serve as an interior "east" of faith. It should stand in the middle of the altar and be the common point of focus for both priest and praying community.

You can read that full blog entry here but the main point I made is this: That the Pope didn't just suggest this when he was a cardinal, he is doing it now that he is the Pope... Should we not be doing what the Pope is doing?

Last week the Papal MC (the guy looking over the Pope's shoulder in the picture above) gave an address at a clergy conference in Rome. He spoke about a great many things but I've sliced it right down for the lazybones among you... (you should really read the whole thing - it's excellent)

...one conviction has always remained clear within the Christian community, almost down to the present day. I am referring to praying facing east, a tradition which goes back to the origins of Christianity.

...

...we would like to reaffirm that prayer facing east, more specifically, facing the Lord, is a characteristic expression of the authentic spirit of the liturgy.

...

Hence the reason for the proposal made by the then Cardinal Ratzinger, and presently reaffirmed during the course of his pontificate, to place the Crucifix on the center of the altar, in order that all, during the celebration of the liturgy, may concretely face and look upon Lord, in such a way as to orient also their prayer and hearts.

link

There are two highly significant things here. The first being that "prayer facing east, more specifically, facing the Lord, is a characteristic expression of the authentic spirit of the liturgy".

In other words, it's not an optional extra for a small minority of people who happen to like it. It's characteristic. You should be able to see it in most places and if this characteristic expression is missing, there's a good chance your parish priest is missing something in his interpretation of the liturgy.

But even more important is this, that the proposal to place the crucifix in the center of the altar is being presently reaffirmed during the course of his [Pope Benedict's] pontificate.

This leads us to the obvious question...

If the Pope suggested it, and the Pope does it, and the Pope's MC says that the Pope intends to reaffirm it, why don't we do it?

It is because we are deaf?

One of the patrons of our diocese is a Bishop whose faithfulness to the Holy See made him so unpopular that he was evicted from his own diocese and had to go to Rome and get the Pope to put him back in charge.

St Wilfrid had some pretty strong words for any local clergy who feel they can do things any way they like...

"But as for you and your companions, you certainly sin, if, having heard the decrees of the Apostolic See, and of the universal church, and that the same is confirmed by holy writ, you refuse to follow them; for, though your fathers were holy, do you think that their small number, in a corner of the remotest island, is to be preferred before the universal church of Christ throughout the world?"

link

1300 years later, our Bishop seems to feel the same way. Shortly after his ordination Bishop Terence Drainey said:

All my priestly life so far I have believed that the will of God is most often expressed to me in and through my superiors, especially my bishop and the teachings of the Church, proposed and proclaimed by our Holy Father, the Pope.

link

Now, I don't have a degree in theology but I would have thought that the obvious result of all this would be a clearly visible link between what goes on in Rome and Middlesbrough. A person from Middlesbrough might go to Rome and think "Ah, so this is where Bishop Drainey gets his ideas".

I don't think it's unreasonable to think that if St Wilfrid were our Bishop today then such a link would exist.

For instance, when we go to Rome we see the Pope distributing communion like this:

Last week as he marked the 1300th anniversary of St Wilfrid's death, Bishop Drainey honoured St Wilfrid by following in his footsteps by closely emulating the actions of the Pope. Or not...

I'm perfectly aware that Bishop Drainey is not being disobedient here. The Vatican have given permission for English Bishops to allow communion in the hand.

But is that really what it comes down to? Does fidelity to Pope Benedict begin and end with the bare minimum? With doing only what is required?

As examples go, it's not spectacular.

He gives communion only to people who are kneeling...

He gives commnion only on the tongue...

He sometimes says Masses Ad Orientem...

He sings his blessings in Latin...

You think my blog is bad? This guy is your worst nightmare...

One of the more exciting challenges that every parent looks forward to is getting the children to go to bed.

Every night I leave work at six and after an evening meal (tea, dinner or supper depending on your taste) I spend a bit of time playing with our eldest Leona, aged two. I try to get a bit of good honest play in every night, sometimes she likes building blocks and sometimes she likes to make me a cup of tea (imaginary of course) and sometimes she likes to play what Ella calls "rough and tumble" which generally consists of me swinging/flinging/throwing her around (all perfectly safe of course) and her laughing ecstatically. It usually ends with us both tired out in a heap on the floor having a hug.

It's over so quickly, by half past seven it's time for bed and I have to be the big bad dad and get her to tidy the toys away and some to brush her teeth. Leona often gets very upset because she wants to play and play and play forever. In fairness to her, a few hours later I will be resisting bed time myself.

So every night we play the "coax Leona to bed" game. It starts with me saying "okay then, let's go upstairs and toodle our broodles" and on the occasional (very rare) night Leona will run off upstairs and stand by the sink and cooperate in some toodle broodling. Most nights she pretends not to hear me. I say it again, she responds by picking up a toy and trying to continue the play "choo choo" she says, pointing at a train. "Yes, very good, but it's time to toodle your broodles".

After I ask again I usually say (in a slightly stern voice) "Leona, I know you can hear me, now it's time to toodle your broodles" and sometimes that works. Sometimes not. Some nights we have to play the "one, two, three" card though I don't use that one so much these days. Sometimes things go on and on and on until eventually I have to pick her up and she screams and screams until we get to the bathroom where I basically brush her mouth when she opens it to scream some more.

Where am I going with this?

Well, this process rather reminds me of what is going on in the Church these days.

To any good little children who are listening to the Holy Father, it's very clear and obvious what he is trying to do. He doesn't want us to go to bed, he want's us to have a reform of the reform. We've had the nicely suggesting that going to bed might be a good idea stage (c/f spirit of the liturgy) and we've had the "well I'm going to brush my teeth" stage (c/f ad orientem in the sistine chapel) and we're rapidly approaching the "I know you can hear me" stage.

That's because for a while now we've been in the "pretending we can't hear" stage. I mean, how obvious do you have to make your hints? Only giving communion to people who are kneeling is quite obvious, but saying Mass in Latin at World Youth Day?? That's like standing halfway up the stairs with a toothbrush in your hand shouting "Leona! It's time to brush your teeth"

Now the news come from Rome that the Congregation for Divine Worship have had a vote and recommended a number of changes to the ordinary form Mass. The following is a translation (by Rorate Caeli) of an article appearing in the Italian daily newspaper Il Giornale.

The Cardinals and Bishops members of the Congregation voted almost unanimously in favor of a greater sacrality of the rite, of the recovery of the sense of eucharistic worship, of the recovery of the Latin language in the celebration, and of the remaking of the introductory parts of the Missal in order to put a stop to abuses, wild experimentations, and inappropriate creativity. They have also declared themselves favorable to reaffirm that the usual way of receiving Communion according to the norms is not on the hand, but in the mouth. There is, it is true, and indult which, on request of the [local] episcopates, allows for the distribution of the host [sic] also on the palm of the hand, but this must remain an extraordinary fact. The "Liturgy Minister" of Pope Ratzinger, Cañizares, is also having studies made on the possibility to recover the orientation towards the Orient of the celebrant, at least at the moment of the eucharistic consecration, as it happened in practice before the reform, when both the faithful and the priest faced towards the Cross and the priest therefore turned his back to the assembly.

[link]

This is the ecclesiastical equivalent of picking up the toothbrush and putting the toothpaste on it, yet all across England and Wales our Bishops are studiously pretending to be so interested in wooden trains and building blocks that they just can't quite hear. The Pope sings Youth Masses in Latin, but our Bishops don't. The Pope gives communion to people who are kneeling, but our Bishops don't. The Pope celebrates Mass ad orientem but our Bishops don't.

We should't get too excited about this, I highly doubt Pope Benedict is ever going to get to the point of physically dragging anybody upstairs to bed.

But I do think we can expect plenty of kicking and screaming.

This is good...

Paul wants Christians to have a "responsible" and "adult faith". The words "adult faith" in recent decades have formed a widespread slogan. It is often meant in the sense of the attitude of those who no longer listen to the Church and her Pastors but autonomously choose what they want to believe and not to believe hence a do-it-yourself faith. And it is presented as a "courageous" form of self-expression against the Magisterium of the Church. In fact, however, no courage is needed for this because one may always be certain of public applause.

Rather, courage is needed to adhere to the Church's faith, even if this contradicts the "logic" of the contemporary world. This is the non-conformism of faith which Paul calls an "adult faith". It is the faith that he desires. On the other hand, he describes chasing the winds and trends of the time as infantile.

Thus, being committed to the inviolability of human life from its first instant, thereby radically opposing the principle of violence also precisely in the defence of the most defenceless human creatures is part of an adult faith. It is part of an adult faith to recognize marriage between a man and a woman for the whole of life as the Creator's ordering, newly re-established by Christ. Adult faith does not let itself be carried about here and there by any trend. It opposes the winds of fashion. It knows that these winds are not the breath of the Holy Spirit; it knows that the Spirit of God is expressed and manifested in communion with Jesus Christ.

However, here too Paul does not stop at saying "no", but rather leads us to the great "yes". He describes the mature, truly adult faith positively with the words: "speaking the truth in love" (cf. Eph 4: 15). The new way of thinking, given to us by faith, is first and foremost a turning towards the truth. The power of evil is falsehood. The power of faith, the power of God, is the truth. The truth about the world and about ourselves becomes visible when we look to God. And God makes himself visible to us in the Face of Jesus Christ.

In looking at Christ, we recognize something else: truth and love are inseparable. In God both are inseparably one; it is precisely this that is the essence of God. For Christians, therefore, truth and love go together. Love is the test of truth. We should always measure ourselves anew against this criterion, so that truth may become love and love may make us truthful.

[link]

Today marks the first day of the Year for Priests which Pope Benedict has proclaimed "to deepen the commitment of all priests to interior renewal for the sake of a more forceful and incisive witness to the Gospel in today’s world" As a blogger who does a lot of complaining, it is often suggested that I do not have a lot of respect for priests. After all, I often complain about priests and accuse some of them of doing things they shouldn't. If I had respect for the priesthood, surely I would never criticise a priest? No matter how they behaved I would be silent and respectful.

I think it is a big mistake to think that hushed silence is a sign of respect. Quietly pretending that somebody did something right when they did it wrong is the sort of behaviour due to tyrannical kings, not priests. It is degrading to the priesthood itself that people feel the need to behave in this way, as if a priest is the Wizard of Oz and nothing more than a fraud hiding behind a facade. In other words, we do not disrespect priests when we say that a particular priest did something wrong, but we do disrespect priests when we say that the priesthood depends on every individual priest never making a mistake and on our covering their mistakes and pretending they don't exist.

To say otherwise is as ludicrous as saying that respect for the divine Kingship of Christ depends on pretending that Henry VIII was a nice guy because otherwise, you obviously don't respect kings. The priest is not of great importance because he never makes mistakes, the priest is of great importance because he is a priest! He is of great importance by virtue of his ordination, not by virtue of his virtue.

It seems to me that when we knowingly hide the negative aspects of a priests behaviour we essentially deny his priesthood because what we are doing is saying that his priesthood is merely a product of his actions. We are saying that we do not respect a priest because he is a priest but because he is a good man. Worse than that though, is that we base even this falsehood on a lie. We do not respect him because he is a good man, we pretend he is a good man so that we can respect him. What sort of respect is that? Think how that looks to the world at large: We value priests because they are good only they aren't always good so we pretend they are...

We value priests because they are priests!

The only possible way to do that, is to freely and openly acknowledge that some priests are very good, some priests are very bad and most priests are somewhere in between. In his letter proclaiming the Year for Priests, Pope Benedict writes...

There are also, sad to say, situations which can never be sufficiently deplored where the Church herself suffers as a consequence of infidelity on the part of some of her ministers. Then it is the world which finds grounds for scandal and rejection. What is most helpful to the Church in such cases is not only a frank and complete acknowledgment of the weaknesses of her ministers, but also a joyful and renewed realization of the greatness of God’s gift, embodied in the splendid example of generous pastors, religious afire with love for God and for souls, and insightful, patient spiritual guides.

[link]

Did you get that? Pope Benedict says that what is "most helpful to the Church" is "a frank and complete acknowledgment of the weaknesses of her ministers" and the "renewed realization of the greatness of God’s gift, embodied in the splendid example of generous pastors". In other words, when Fr Fun gets up to his usual tricks, what is "most helpful to the Church" is a frank and complete acknowledgement of what he is doing wrong and the renewed realization of how wonderful things are when Fr Faithful does them right.

So should Catholics criticise priests? It looks like the answer is that we should frankly and completely acknowledge their weaknesses with renewed realization of the greatness of God's gift embodied in the splendid example of generous pastors.

I think that might be Latin for "Yes".

No wait...

ROME, MAY 28, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Laypeople are not merely the clergy's collaborators, but rather share in the responsibility of the Church's ministry, says Benedict XVI.

The Pope called on the laity to become more aware of their role when he inaugurated Tuesday an ecclesial conference for the Diocese of Rome on "Church Membership and Pastoral Co-responsibility." The conference is under way through Friday.

"There should be a renewed becoming aware of our being Church and of the pastoral co-responsibility that, in the name of Christ, all of us are called to carry out," the Holy Father said. This co-responsibility should advance "respect for vocations and for the functions of consecrated persons and laypeople," he added.

The Pontiff acknowledged that this requires a "change of mentality," especially regarding laypeople, shifting from "considering themselves collaborators of the clergy to recognizing themselves truly as 'co-responsible' for the being and action of the Church, favoring the consolidation of a mature and committed laity."

[link]

Don't misinterpret this: "shared responsibility" is not the same as "shared power" or "shared authority".

What shared responsibility means is that if we have priests and laity who are doing things they shouldn't and bishops who won't do anything about it then we have the responsibility to do whatever we can about it.

I don't think we're being unreasonable...

The whole condoms in Africa question is one of those issues things that comes up with tedious regularity. I've heard priests (and I'm sure you can guess who, so I won't bother) say that Pope John Paul II was responsible for millions of deaths in Africa due to his stance on condoms which many people believe is clearly to blame. Now some are saying the same about Pope Benedict XVI. The people at "Catholics for Choice" have kindly put together a list of dissenting Bishops and Cardinals. It's a long list (including our own Cardinal Cormac).

The problem for you and I, ordinary Catholics on the ground, is how to explain the Church's position to our not particularly religious friends. Nobody is going to tell us in RE classes or Confirmation courses, nobody is going to explain it from the pulpit. We're on our own. When the people we are with in the Pub proudly announce that they went to a Catholic school "but I don't believe all that nonsense now" and then go on to say that the Pope is responsible for millions of deaths...

What do you say?

The Problem Stated

The question usually centres on a married couple. One of the partners has Aids and the other doesn't. That presents us with two options, either they can have sex without a condom and pass on the Aids virus, or they can use a condom and the other partner can remain safe. Clearly, no rational person would suggest that the couple have unprotected sex, so we should obviously allow an exception to the "no condom" rule on this occasion.

Recently I've started seeing a new variation on this. During his recent visit to Africa Pope Benedict said that Aids "cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems", our opponents have a field day with that. Silly Pope.. He thinks that giving people condoms increases the spread Aids!

He's right though.

The Short Answer

What should the married couple do? One of them has Aids, the other doesn't. Should they have sex without a condom and pass on Aids or should they have sex with a condom and be safe? The catch is this.. Condoms are not 100% effective. Scientists are divided about how effective a condom is at stopping Aids but in the Pub we can't start pulling out scientific journals and everybody will assume you're just making it up anyway so stick with the commonly accepted figure that condoms are 99% effective.

So that gives our couple two options: They can have sex without a condom and have a 100% chance of passing the Aids or they can have sex with a condom and have a 1% chance of passing the Aids. The condom is still looking pretty good. Surely the condom is the lesser of two evils?

Except there is a third option, which isn't evil at all. They could abstain from sex altogether.

I used the slightly provocative example of a gun. You can shoot it at your wife fully loaded, you can take a chance and shoot it as your wife with some of the bullets taken out or you can not shoot it. What would Jesus do?

The Full Answer

As your opponent will probably point out. The short answer doesn't do a lot to explain how condoms "aggravate" the problem and it's idealistic. It's all very well having these ideals but you need to get in the real world. You might think it's the right thing to do by your moral standard, but you can't impose that standard on other people. Besides which "Science" has "proved" that condoms are the solution to the Aids problem... Has it indeed?

What if there were no condoms...

The first question I would want to ask anybody is this: Imagine you are that person who has Aids and your partner does not. Imagine you live in a remote village in Africa and you have no access to condoms. What would you do? Would you have sex with your partner and knowingly infect them with Aids?

I'm guessing you wouldn't. I'm guessing that if you understood the risks involved you would be willing to abstain from sex because you don't want your partner to catch Aids. What's more, I'm pretty sure you would think quite badly of anybody who knowingly infected somebody with Aids. I don't think you would call it idealistic for an infected person to avoid sex, I'm pretty sure you would consider it a more of a moral duty.

Whether you think you would succeed or not, I think we can all agree that the right thing to do would be to try and abstain from sex in order to save your partners life. I think we can also all agree that the right thing for a moral leader like the Pope to say would be "If you have Aids, don't have sex because you will give other people Aids and that's bad".

What if condoms were really rubbish...

Still talking hypothetically, the second question I would like to ask is this: Imagine if condoms were really rubbish at preventing Aids. I'm not claiming they are, I'm asking you to imagine the situation. Imagine if condoms were 50% effective so that sex with your partner had a 50% chance of getting Aids after a year of regular sex.

Would you take that chance? Is your own sexual gratification work taking a 50/50 gamble with a persons life, a person you supposedly "love"? I expect you would say not. I expect you would say that such a risk is to high, your partner is worth more to you than that and that you would still abstain from sex.

So what if condoms were 75% effective? Your partner now has a 1 in 4 chance of getting Aids. Would you risk it?

I wouldn't.

What price your partners life?

Ultimately, we're just negotiating a price. What risk are you willing to take with another persons life? What price are you willing to pay for your own sexual gratification? Are we talking about 90% or 99%? Give me a figure? How much do you love your partner? What would Jesus do?

It's not hard is it. If you love your partner, if you want what's best for them, no risk is acceptable. I would have thought our hyper-careful-bubble-wrap-the-children culture would get that. If your child married somebody with Aids, what risk would you be willing to accept?

Damn right the Pope says no.

What the Pope is really saying is that human life has a greater value than sexual pleasure. He's saying it is never acceptable to say "this act might result in my partners death but I will do it anyway because I enjoy it and that's more important than their life".

Is don't think that view is unreasonable. Even if you disagree, I'm not sure how you could possible consider it worthy of the kind of derision and mockery it usually receives.

Do condoms really "aggravate" things?

Recently the Pope came under fire for suggesting that condoms actually make the Aids situation worse.

Let's compare the two situations. In the absence of condoms we have a situation in which people are very much aware of the risks involved and do their best to avoid infection. If you knew that sex with a stranger would result in a deadly disease, I expect you would be very careful to avoid sex with strangers. If you knew that sex with your partner would result in her contracting a deadly disease, I expect you would think very hard before having sex with your partner. If you knew that having sex with your partner would result in you contracting a deadly disease, I expect you would think even harder.

Now introduce condoms with their magical promise of "safe" sex. Why not have sex with a stranger? Why not have sex with your partner? It's safe and even if it isn't you've done nothing wrong because you did your best and used a condom. The fact is, that in Africa the "married couple where one partner has Aids" problem isn't the cause of the spreading of Aids, it's the "lots of people have more than one sexual partner" problem.

So we've gone from a situation in which people infected with Aids feel morally obliged to avoid sex and people without Aids are strongly motivated to avoid sex with Aids carriers, to a situation in which people infected with Aids feel they are covered morally by condom use and people without Aids have a false sense of security. What difference do you think that's going to make to the amount of risk taking going on?

The Pope isn't alone on this, Harvard Scientist Edward C Green is not a Catholic nor does he consider it wrong to use condoms for contraceptive purposes, but he agrees with the Pope: Condoms make things worse...

...intuitively, some condom use ought to be better than no use. But that's not what the research in Africa shows.

Why not?

One reason is "risk compensation." That is, when people think they're made safe by using condoms at least some of the time, they actually engage in riskier sex.

[...]

...ongoing multiple concurrent sex partnerships resemble a giant, invisible web of relationships through which HIV/AIDS spreads. A study in Malawi showed that even though the average number of sexual partners was only slightly over two, fully two-thirds of this population was interconnected through such networks of overlapping, ongoing relationships.

So what has worked in Africa? Strategies that break up these multiple and concurrent sexual networks -- or, in plain language, faithful mutual monogamy or at least reduction in numbers of partners, especially concurrent ones.

[link]

A Question of Choice

At the end of the day, whether condoms agravate the situation or not (and I think they do), the Pope isn't there to treat the people of Africa like animals in a zoo. He isn't there to say "African people are animals who can't help having sex so we have to allow them to use condoms". The people who think condoms are a magical solution to Aids tend to talk a bit like that.

As Christians we believe that all people are made in the image of God and endowed with the ability to make their own choices. They have the ability to choose between right and wrong, the freedom to choose the good. Abstinence, sacrifice of ones own sexual acivity for the benefit of others is the more loving, more christlike thing to do.

But what would a celibate Pope know about abstaining from sex?