David Gibson on the Condomonium in the New York Times
November 29, 2010, 2:38 pm
Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
Here’s our own David Gibson on the Pope, condoms, and Catholic moral reasoning.
Condomonium = Pandemonium about Condoms
This too shall not pass.
I am wondering if David G. has met Father Federico Lombardi, http://www.catholic.org/hf/faith/story.php?id=39269 and if so, is he the priest who appears to be sharing an inside joke with Cardinal Bertone in this video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4M_UaZmQfQ&feature=player_embedded
A pretty balanced analysis of the Gibson article from Father Z:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/11/hells-bible-on-the-popes-statement-about-condoms/
I love the word condomonium. Is it your own coinage, Cathleen? Clever!
The reason we are having this discussion is the reliance on the premise that if the pope or Vatican says such and such it must make sense. But any logical person can see the lies, (tell it like it is) all over the place. A few years ago this was wrong now it is permissible. The situation has not changed. But BXVI has undegone a conversion experience. Who would keep a friend who talked like that? Even a business relationship. Where is Mark Twain when we need him? If you can’t keep it simple you are stupid.
I have been fisked by Father Z! I can retire now, having achieved all my life’s goals…
Sadly, I don’t think he laid a glove on me, though maybe that wasn’t his intent, as he agrees with my lede, for example. Actually, he agrees with most of my points, as far as I can tell. More snark than facts. Maybe he’s taking it easy on me for the holidays.
The only point I’d take issue with, in fact, is his rejection of Fr. Lombardi’s quotes, since they came directly from the Pope.
Nancy, I do enjoy your tics now and then, but I am truly flummoxed at your video reference. Yes, I have met Father Lombardi, and he is to the right of the Holy Father as you watch the video. But I don’t see him interacting at all with Bertone.
Boy, we really do see only the things we want to see, don’t we?
Which is to say, you have a great knack for seeing, or at least publicly asserting, the exact opposite of what was actually said.
“Fr. Z,” of whom I am not a fan, actually DISAGREES with almost all of your points, just as what Pope Benedict actually said was diametrically the opposite of what you ascribe to him.
Bender, what does he disagree with? And how did I mischaracterize what Benedict said? In fact, I didn’t characterize Benedict’s comments at all, just quoted them and those he passed through his spokesman.
And I learned a new word “fisked”.
Rita, thank you.
BTW, I also think I made up the phrase “professional Catholics” when I was in graduate school. The Pope doesn’t like professional Catholics, but I was honored that he used the phrase.
And my all-time greatest hit: Rambo Catholics.
Who is Father Z anyway? Does he live in the US? Is he a professor? I looked for his bio but couldn’t find it on his blog. I was going to email him to ask, but he said that he gets hundreds of emails and people shouldn’t expect an answer.
Judging from his top post, he looks like a fabulous cook.
But his header confused me. Maybe I have Harry Potter on the brain. For a minute, I thought he was casting a spell on Jesus and the Pope. And that would be very, very wrong. I looked again, and saw it was a photo montage. Phew.
David Gibson,
Nice article. Is it really true that a 2000 article on this subject got Fr. Reese canned? I’d be interested in your sources for that bit of info. Also, was this 2000 America article written by Prof Kaveny? Could you give me the cite?
Much obliged.
David, thank you for the article…no fisking here.
Cathleen, I believe this refers to the same Fr. Z: “Fr. John T. Zuhlsdorf was ordained in 1991 by Pope John Paul II for the diocese of Velletri-Segni in Italy. He is a former collaborator with the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei and has served in parishes both in Italy and the U.S. He has been moderator of the Catholic Online Forum (http://forum.catholic.org) for over ten years. He has addressed several Wanderer regional and national forums and is part of the Focus on Faith retreat team. His column on liturgical translations for The Wanderer is now in its fifth year.” http://www.wandererforum.org/
JC, don’t start false rumors!
No. It wasn’t written by me — my only writing thus far on the topic was my little letter in the NYT twenty years ago. Fr. Z, I, think, also studied with Reggie Foster– but not during the times I was there.
“Boy, we really do see only the things we want to see, don’t we?”
Bender –
Might this also possibly, just possibly, describe you?
Prof Kaveny,
I’m sorry.
I think I was confused by an earlier thread where comments mentioned an article by you. I think that might have been on casuistry.
I think this must be the article referred to by Gibson:
“The Vatican’s new insights on
condoms for H.I.V. prevention” by
Jon D. Fuller and James F. Keenan | SEPTEMBER 23, 2000
here’s a link: http://americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2281
This seems as good a place as any to post this comment: having now read the pope’s money quote numerous times, as well as most/all the posts and commentary here and quite a few of the linked articles and other explanations …. I’m still not completely sure just what the Holy Father meant, and what the implications are.
Does his statement have anything whatever, either directly, indirectly or somewhere down the slippery slope, to do with married couples?
Did he in fact mean that condoms can be used to combat AIDS? Thus, do the Catholic social service agencies that are reputed to pass out condoms in Africa now have a green light?
JC: I posted on l’affaire Reese twice:
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=134
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=192
Yes, Mr. Gallicho, I read those. They are more about the who. What combo of bishops, jesuits and Ratzinger forced out Reese. I was thinking more about the why.
Gibson said:
“For instance, Cardinal Ratzinger strongly disapproved of a 2000 article published in America magazine, a Jesuit weekly, that argued that there was a “moral consensus” among Catholic theologians that condoms could be used to fight the spread of H.I.V. ”
I guess Gibson is basing that on Allen’s report from Rome that you quote.
I suppose this whole situation is what you guys mean when you say we need more transparency. We don’t really know why.
I’m still not completely sure just what the Holy Father meant, and what the implications are.
Jim,
This is exactly how I feel. There are those who insist the pope said nothing new at all. There are also those who claim he didn’t exactly say anything new, but he should not have said what he did because it caused confusion. Then there are those who claim what he said was in error, and they disagree with him. There are many interpretations that are mutually incompatible. And of course some people think the whole thing was a gaffe, while others think it was a stroke of genius on the pope’s part to launch an important discussion.
As I have said before, if we see Catholic HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment organizations change what they are doing “on the ground,” then we will know something has changed. If not, the whole episode amounts to nothing.
JC: I’ve spoken to people very close to these events who have verified my claims and David’s. I’m sure he has too. America was threatened with episcopal oversight for the same reason Tom Reese was eventually fired: too many articles that seemed to question church teaching on–or at least a certain interpretation of what the institutional church has said on the subjects of–homosexuality, abortion, stem cells, and the use of condoms. (Never mind that the magazine often paired such pieces with articles that supported church teaching…)
Aren’t you guys supposed to say something like “sources said” or give some attribution?
Just to be clear, I’m not really doubting you guys, or your sources. I just had never heard it so bluntly stated before this.
I wonder what America said about abortion. Did they really run an article saying abortion should be legal? That seems unlikely. I remember Stephen Pope wrote an article in favor of gay marriage around 2003, and it was paired with a counterpoint.
“Who is Father Z anyway? Does he live in the US? Is he a professor?”
In Professor (“Dr”?) Kaveny’s eyes, apparently, this priest of God is unworthy of reading if he is not crowned with multiple degrees and, like her, ensconced in the ivory tower. She’s consistent in her academic condescension, I’ll grant her that.
From today’s Office of Readings…timely:
For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the learning of the learned I will set aside.”
Where is the wise one? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish?
For since in the wisdom of God the world did not come to know God through wisdom, it was the will of God through the foolishness of the proclamation to save those who have faith.
You may find it surprising that Professor Kaveny is unfamiliar with the work of one of your heroes; you may think she must be clueless not to know of the great Father Zuhlsdorf; what you may not credibly do, right before you start quoting the Office of Readings, is express your presumption that in “Kaveny’s eyes, apparently, this priest of God is unworthy of reading if he is not crowned with multiple degrees and, like her, ensconced in the ivory tower. She’s consistent in her academic condescension, I’ll grant her that.” Yes, that’s right: you’re granting her that, or rather dumping it on her. There is no foundation for it in her comment. You might also consider that people are not guilty of worldy wisdom simply because they disagree with your militant sectarianism. Nor does your noisy contempt for learning confer any special moral authority on your prejudices. Finally, I at least have read a little of Fr. Z’s work, and he does not strike me as a man whom anyone would describe as one of God’s holy fools.
David Gibson, thank you for a very fine article. I thought it was especially interesting to consider the Reese affair and the present incident side by side. But it’s not at all clear what we may conclude from it.
Has it occurred to anyone that the pope is just a little amused by the fuss he knew he would create?
JC: I don’t have the articles handy, but you’re right, they didn’t run an article in favor of abortion. I believe it was about prochoice Catholic politicians and Communion.
JC: I actually devoted a chapter to the Reese/America episode in my book on B16, and rather exhaustively reported the story myself, on both sides of the Atlantic. There has been much else on it that has emerged since then to confirm it all as well, so at this point I felt it was sufficient to state the case without using the “sources said” construct. That could also connote that it is new information, or that one or two people said, and would not convey the breadth of reporting on it. And in the format, an analysis piece, I think that’s pretty standard.
I would agree that more transparency is needed, but in its absence, reporters have had to dig up the info — alas.
Also, yes, it was Ratzinger who had the ultimate say-so on Reese, but there were certainly a number of influential American bishops who raised objections. Not an unusual dynamic. I hope that clarifies.
I see Father Z hasn’t read my book — his loss! But while you likely wouldn’t agree with many of my takes on Ratzinger, there is a good deal of interesting info in there, on the conclave and much else (if I say so myself), and I’m sure the book wouldn’t cost more than $2 at amazon…So it goes. I’d send one, but postage would cost more.
Rita, I think you are spot on — I suspect Benedict is rather amused, and I think it’s good that he’s content to open up the topic for these kinds of discussions. It’s is one way clarifications happen, rather than a document from on high.
“There is no foundation for it in her comment.”
She wrote: “Who is Father Z anyway? Does he live in the US? Is he a professor?” If you cannot read the dismissive contempt she has thereby directed at the source, then I guess we have no basis for discussion. This is merely the latest in a continuing cavalcade of condescension consistently cascading from Kaveny’s comments, by the way.
PS I earned a doctorate in alliteration, magna cum laude.
Mr. Flanagan, cut it out. You’re remarks tell more about your own insecurities than my supposed condescension.
It was a question. I didn’t know who he was.
I do have a day job, and I don’t spend all day scrutinizing all the stars in the firmament of the Catholic blogosphere.
Flanagan:
I can read “dismissive contempt” into her comments, as you have. But there are other, more charitable and less contrived ways to read those sentences. Do you really imagine that Cathleen Kaveny disregards the judgments of anyone who does not live in the US or is not a professor? You’re just being silly.
Thanks very much. Yes, clarification helped. It’s not often that I can get something clarified by the author of an NYTimes article. I appreciate your availability. Can’t keep up with all of this. I promise to buy your book used, and read it!
P Flanagan, you seem either unable to focus or desperate to change the subject. If you have something to say about condomonium that doesn’t require a hit on Caveny or a puff for Zulsdorf, why don’t you just come out and say it?
For instance, what do you personally think about the moral life of male prostitutes? The pope is concerned. Can you summon up no interest in this topic whatsoever?
Well, if nothing else, B16 has everyone talking, researching, commenting and questioning, all versions of ‘spin’. When the issue is thoroughly chewed through, no-one will have any clearer insight into the thinking in the great man’s brain.
So, why doesn’t someone, who knows someone, etc… get someone (6 degrees of separation) to simply ask the man.
My impression is that B16, when speaking without a prepared text, is inclined to verbal ‘Faux Pas’. The suggestion has been made that his ‘handlers’ (who I suppose are PR Police Priests) are always having to put out fires that arise from his occasional slips…
What might be most interesting is to ask him a direct question.
I wonder is his garments or election by the conclave make him somewhat super-human in the eyes of people. After all, he is just a man…
Just ask him. Then, you will know. (or not…)
I thought there were ground rules about prohibiting insults/personal criticisms? P. Flanagan’s remarks about Cathleen Kaveny seem to me to break that rule.
P. didn’t (quite) criticize Professor Kaveny, but only the idea that the measure of people’s intellectual credibility is the number of degrees they hold. Christ wasn’t too big on that idea either.
The question (“Who is he? Does he have enough degrees that I should bother with him?”) sounded odd to me too at first. But I think Professor K. was just wondering if she had met him at conventions.
FWIW, I have a Ph.D. and I work for a university. All of the extremely dumb people I know have Ph.D.’s and some of the smartest skipped the university thing altogether.
Felapton- I never heard of Father Z. either; I don’t see why asking who he is should spark an angry comment. Adam Marischuk was able to answer the question with a much more appropriate (and informative) response. Saying someone spoke with “‘dismissive contempt” and “condescension”, if not insulting, certainly does nothing to further a dialogue.
He misread her. Comboxes are ambiguous. The Mishnah is composed entirely of the first century equivalent of comboxes and the Jews have been arguing about what it means for two millennia.
“Misreading” does tend to happen when you’re actively looking for an opportunity to say something accusatory and nasty. It’s called trolling. Let’s get back to the topic, please.
“The suggestion has been made that his “handlers” are always having to put out fires.”
Well, to begin with, they don’t appear to be taking what the Pope has to say seriously. Perhaps it is time for some new “handlers”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4M_UaZmQfQ&feature=player_embedded
Mollie O’Reilly’s right: What is the topic?
Gibson in the NY Times seems to magnanimously dismiss most of what B16 said as just a theologian being “Jesuitical,” recapturing his days in academia, no matter how “pejorative.” That may be true, but I don’t think that is the only thing going on here.
I don’t think that we should view Ratzinger as some ruminating theologian who was demonstrating how elastic, maybe twisted, his thinking can be.
Ratzinger is most importantly a politician, and he should be judged by those standards. I believe that Ratzinger’s comments were very calculated in order to try to find some daylight between himself and an intellectually and politically bankrupt position about dealing with the AIDS pandemic.
I also don’t think that it is just being cynical to point out that Ratzinger, consciously or unconsciously, chose to offer “male prostitutes” in his example of what we must now assume is acceptable papal “moral relativism.”
Good luck with that one, Joseph! That growling you hear from your usual reactionary supporters means they are baring their teeth.
Ratzinger is a product of an all-male feudal oligarchy – many, if not most, who are gay. It’s not a stretch for me to conclude that perhaps Ratzinger was speaking to and from the life experiences of many of his “brother” priests and bishops who need to justify their personal behavior.
Will Ratzinger’s latest comments spark a debate? Maybe among the clerical caste. But most of us are way beyond that kind of “casuistry.”
B16 and his hierarchy are, and will remain, essentially irrelevant to the lives of growing millions of Catholics and Christians. Sadly, the hierarchy neither add to, nor subtract from, anything fir our lives.
There may still be a debate within the hierarchy about the use of condoms to fight the pernicious plague of AIDS, but the people have moved on long ago – and they are not coming back.
Please, maybe someone could tell Joseph Ratzinger that nobody wants to hear anymore lectures about moral relativism especially from someone who is a political hypocrite.
Ratzinger is most importantly the Vicar of Christ and he should be judged by those standards.
There is no reason a rational person would believe his comments were calculated for political purposes. (Benedict is not such an incompetent calculator.) There is no reason to believe he chose “male prostitute” for any nefarious reason. (Condoms are designed to be worn by men.) There is certainly no reason to believe he is justifying his estate’s personal behavior. (He appears to be completely in the dark about who hires male prostitutes and what for.)
Didn’t we just say that this is the sort of “misreading” that happens when you’re looking for an opportunity to insult someone? Go insult our Holy Father somewhere else.
@ Jim and David N.: I suspect the reason the pope’s being said to have said nothing new, and also something very new, is that both are true. The “object, end (intention) and circumstances” mode of defining acts–you can’t understand the MORAL meaning of an act without all 3, is Thomistic. Nothing new there. That’s why Opus Dei’s Martin Rhonheimer made essentially the same argument back in ’04, including applying it to married couples. Here, the left and the right are in full accord–at least the Thomists among the left and the right.
But in our time, there’s been a tendency to lean on a notion of “intrinsically evil acts” described merely objectively, without reference to intent and circumstances. Using condoms for sex has been understood (wrongly, IMHO) as one such act. By saying that the use of condoms in sex may be “justified” (B16′s word,) in ANY circumstances, the pope means that we need to look beyond the condom to understand the act. The pope hasn’t changed course on contraception as such, (though I think a logical outcome of his statement here is to re-open that question,) but he has said that sometimes condom use is good and right–where the condom is used as a disease-preventive, and contraception (if any) is a “side-effect.” And yes, while developed-world people basically ignore the pope on contraception in all its forms, the magisterium has substantial impact in public policy decisions world-wide, which has been especially devastating where bishops declare condom use itself immoral. So he’s taken condom use in sex out of the category of intrinsically evil acts–an overdue “clarification” that sounds new because of rampant misunderstanding.
And there’s an interesting authority question going on here. Different kinds of magisterial statements have different “levels” of authority. Some of the anti-condom statements have been by bishops exercising their episcopal authority. Does a mere interview with the pope trump an official statement by a bishop? Richard Gaillardetz, are you out there??
Jonathan Davis @ 11:18 said this: “After all, he (BXVI) is just a man.”
That reminded me of the lyrics from Jesus Christ Superstar:
“He’s a man. He’s just a man. He is not a king, he is just the same as anyone I know. He scares me so.”
Me, too, Jonathan; me, too.
Just for the record, I thought that Cathleen’s question was frankly optimistic, expecting to find some common ground, and offering a few positive possibilities. Sadly, the truth isn’t nearly as good as the hypotheses she offered, which may be why the commenter who brought up Fr. Z was assuming Cathleen was sneering at him. (This is turning out to be one of those ink-blot tests, isn’t it?) But enough about that.
There is an awful lot of guessing about what Benedict really meant in lots of circumstances, isn’t there? For someone so articulate and intelligent, it’s strange, isn’t it? Almost a signature of his papacy. With Muslims, with the lifting of excommunications of SSPX bishops, with “save the rain forests” as an argument for marriage between man and woman, and now with condoms worn by sex workers as a gesture toward moral living–everyone’s guessing. (Were other popes in recent history this enigmatic? I seem to recall that when people didn’t know what JPII was trying to convey it was always put down to him thinkng in Polish, but of course there was never this series of train wrecks to account for.)
Jim Jenkins thinks Benedict may be “trying to find some daylight between himself and an intellectually and politically bankrupt position about dealing with the AIDS pandemic.” Lisa Fullam thinks “he’s taken condom use in sex out of the category of intrinsically evil acts–an overdue ‘clarification.’” Felapton thinks his statement is free of political calculation, nefarious undertones, or self-justification of the mores of his (clerical) estate, but doesn’t say quite what it is the pope has done.
I see a variety of possibilities, including the idea that he just wanted to pull somebody’s chain. As people get more elderly, they do sometimes indulge a rather wicked temptation to assert themselves by doing something which will cause people around them to scramble. Or maybe he just wants people to think harder about the purpose of the teaching about contraception.
If he really wanted to offer a helpful clarification about a highly controversial subject, an interview with a journalist is an odd place to come out with it, isn’t it?
When did Pope Benedict say that the use of condoms may be justified? (Lisa’s words)
BTW, if torture is used to save a life, does that mean that the use of torture is not always an intrinsically evil act?
“There is an awful lot of guessing about what Benedict really meant in lots of circumstances, isn’t there? For someone so articulate and intelligent, it’s strange, isn’t it? Almost a signature of his papacy. With Muslims, with the lifting of excommunications of SSPX bishops, with “save the rain forests” as an argument for marriage between man and woman, and now with condoms worn by sex workers as a gesture toward moral living–everyone’s guessing. (Were other popes in recent history this enigmatic?”
I agree with whoever above said that occasionally he veers off the road when he diverges from the script. Of course it isn’t just him; politicians and other public figures under intense public scrutiny run the same risk. But it’s noteworthy that professional political campaigns and political offices like the White House have devised media response capabilities that involve responding to gaffes at the speed of the contemporary news cycle.
@Nancy: here’s the quote from B16′s new book, cited in one earlier report:
“There may be justified individual cases, for example when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be … a first bit of responsibility, to re-develop the understanding that not everything is permitted and that one may not do everything one wishes.”
If an act is “intrinsically evil,” it cannot be directly intended for any reason. To speak of an act as intrinsically evil is not to say HOW bad it is–e.g., masturbation and genocide are both sometimes described as intrinsically evil, but are not equally bad by any reasonable standard. So, no–if torture is intrinsically evil, you cannot “justify” it by saying it was done to save a life. Here, it is B16′s use of the word “justified” that carries the argument. If an act can be justified, it cannot also be intrinsically evil.
I read an interview somewhere with Seewald, in which he said that while he was interviewing then-Cardinal Ratzinger for “Salt of the Earth,” at one point he (R) asked for some time to go pray before answering one of his (S) questions. But he said, apart from that, he (R) answered every question just as it was asked, as simply and candidly as a student taking an exam.
If anybody has fumbled here, it would seem to be Seewald. Is there more on his tape recorder than in the book? Did it not occur to him to ask for clarification during the interview? Has he perhaps deliberately withheld relevant comments in order to reveal them later, when sales begin to flag?
It is not exactly a secret that Benedict has lived in an ecclesiastical bubble for quite a while. But Seewald is married with children. He must have foreseen the uproar.
My response to Jim J. has been considerably bowdlerized. About which I do not complain; it is the thread-owners right and I acknowledge I occasionally get carried away. However, I would like to make the point (calmly, if absolutely necessary) that I find Jim J.’s gratuitous, intentional, and egregious invective against the Pope profoundly offensive and I’m sure I’m not the only one. Not only because he is Pope, but also because Benedict would never treat another human being that way himself.
Lisa, why don’t you compare the cited quote with the actual quote in the book? Perhaps David G. has a copy of the book.
Felapton, who is the thread owner and on what basis does the thread owner have a “right” to allow offensive comments that are not consistent with the commenting ground rules to begin with, to be displayed?
I must have been a VERY bad boy today.
Nancy, the owner of the thread (the contributor whose name appears at the top) is unfairly, but necessarily held responsible for everything that shows up on it by a lot of people, and ought to have a right to maintain it any way he or she thinks is appropriate.
Jimmy Mac, I did not refer to you, but to Jim Jenkins, who posted at 2:26 p.m. today. It’s good to have you back, by the way. You were gone a long time. I hope you didn’t have what my doctor calls a health “issue.”
BTW, I think Seewald’s description of the interview process is in the forward to “Salt of the Earth” not a separate interview.
Felapton: I wasn’t referring to your comment. Rather, some of my postings have been deleted. Bad me, I guess.
Felapton: no health problems. Rather, a month out of the country preceded by a 3 week problem with ye olde computer.
Thanks for your concerns/welcome back!