Benedict in Cameroon, Day 1: Pope Leo?
UPDATE: John Thavis has a good look at the whole Vatican “redaction temptation” issue as regards the pope’s ”official” comments. It’s called, “There they go again…”
Not to worry–unlike the feisty cub the pope sported with in the Vatican last month, this one at right (AP foto via Rocco) isn’t going to hurt a bit.
Such are the marvelous incongruities of the visit of a Roman pontiff to a place like Cameroon. And of course serious issues, like the formation of priests–lots of vocation, but challenges in discernment–and of course liturgy. That’s a big one for Benedict, and a big difference in style with African Catholicism.
Rocco has full texts; CNS’s John Thavis has the roundup:
The meeting with bishops was a simple affair. After adoration of the Eucharist and a few songs from the church’s choir, the pope delivered his talk in French and English. He focused on the bishops’ responsibility to guide the country’s priests and make sure there is “serious discernment” in choosing candidates for the priesthood. Cameroon has enjoyed a boom in vocations and currently has 1,360 seminarians.The pope said the bishops should have personal and profound knowledge of priesthood candidates, overseeing formation programs that guarantee they are “mature and balanced men” when ordained.He urged the bishops to be “especially vigilant regarding the faithfulness of priests and consecrated persons to the commitments made at their ordination or entry into religious life.”“The authenticity of their witness requires that there be no dichotomy between what they teach and the way they live each day,” he said. The pope was not specific, but in the past Vatican officials have expressed concern that the commitment to priestly celibacy be better understood and respected among African clergy.[snip]
The pope praised the “festive and joyful” liturgies in Cameroon, which reflect the happiness of those participating. But he told the bishops it was essential that “the joy expressed in this way does not obstruct, but rather facilitates dialogue and communion with God” through the structure of the Catholic liturgy. The dignity of liturgical celebrations must be preserved, especially when large crowds of faithful are attending, he said.
CONDOM UPDATE: For what it’s worth, the Vatican has apparently tweaked the pope’s comments on condoms and AIDS for the official transcript to substitute the word “condoms” with “prophylactics.” Not sure why. The new version also seems to modify slightly but significantly his words regarding the condoms worsening the problem.
As Corriere della Sera reports, in the original tape-recorded comments to journalists, the pope says:
“…non si può superare con la distribuzione di preservativi che, al contrario, aumentano il problema.”
“One cannot overcome the problem with the distribution of condoms, which, on the contrary, increase the problem.”
In the official text (in Italian), he is rendered saying:
“…non si può risolvere il flagello con la distribuzione di profilattici: al contrario, il rischio è di aumentare il problema».
“One cannot overcome the problem with the distribution of prophylactics: on the contrary, that risks increasing the problem.”
(My translation of that last bit–feel free to suggest changes)
YET ANOTHER UPDATE: It seems ”condoms” (preservativi”) is now back in place of “prophylactics,” but the other (and more substantive) redaction remains. I wonder if the Vatican health care covers repetitive stress injuries…
Hey, where can I get one of those here’s-what-he-meant-to-say services?
In the two versions, the same Italian word is used–”preservativi”. Why in one English version is it translated “condoms” and in the other “prophylactics”? I don’t see any significant difference in the two versions. In the one case, it’s condoms that would increase the problem; in the other it’s distributing them that runs the risk of increasing the problem.
Apologies, my transcription lapse. It should have been “non si può risolvere il flagello con la distribuzione di profilattici: al contrario, il rischio è di aumentare il problema.”
Not sure why the change; of course having confused “preservativi” for the English “prservatives” while speaking in Italian, I could understand.
I see the Corriere was smart enough to save a screen shot of the “prophylactics.” (I hope I’m even spelling that right.)
http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/Esteri/2009/03/18/pop_vaticano.shtml
I would submit that the change is quite significant.
Saying that condoms increase the problem of AIDS — as the Pope stated it — is indefensible.
But it could certainly be argued that the distribution of them (for many and various reasons) actually does risk increasing the problem.
Agreed.
How does “Distributing condoms runs the risk of incrreasing the spread AIDs” differ from “Distributing condoms might increase the spread of AIDs”. Not much difference? But then one might respond also “Distributing condoms might also decrease the spread of AIDs”. I don’t think we are in a postion to evaluate the relative probabilities. Clearly much depends on the circumstances and situation in which condoms are made available. One may moralize freely. What is likely to happen is more difficult to determine. History is full of people who guessed wrong.
maybe the Vatican first changed preservativi with profilattici, because preservativi reminds too to preserve, to PROTECT, its original meaning in Italian.
Is “preservativi” correct Italian? Or is it the correct Italian word for prophylactics rather than say jam preservatives?
I recall Benedict assuring the African bishops shortly after his election that the Church was to the forefront in fighting Aids, not only because of its care for the sick, but because of its teaching of abstinence…
What language did Benedict give the interview in?
Is it any wonder that those not attached to or enamored with the Church of Rome shake their heads in cases like these and mutter somethin akin to “There but for the grace of God go we”?
Blessed John XXIII, we need thee more than ever. No wonder the Holy Spirit has just extended Her sabbatical for another decade or so.
Two jokes about John XXIII and the Holy Spirit: (1) When the secretary of the Council announced after the Mass at each day of the Council, “Exeant omnes” (Everyone who’s not supposed to be here should leave now), the Holy Spirit departed also. (2) When Pope John died, St. Peter greeted him and took him around to meet the members of the Holy Trinity. But the Holy Spirit couldn’t be found, When St. Peter finally found him, he told him he wanted to introduce him to Pope John. The Holy Spirit replied: “I’m so embarrassed. He invited me to that Council and I forgot to go.”
I sometimes think the primary purpose of language and statements about the Holy Spirit is to confirm us in our own views.
A Holy Spirit sighting: Standing in St. Peter’s Square amid the crowd as Benedict XVI was introduced, was a priest, perhaps in his 60s, Irish, I think. We chatted amiably about nothing much, never got his name. After Ratzinger was announced, to most everyone’s surprise, and the whole pageant was done, the fellow turned to me and said, just as amiably, “Well, I hope the Holy Spirit knows what he–or she–is doing.” I thought it was a nice bit a gender-balancing.
And of course there is the sagest observation ever about the Holy Spirit and conclaves, by Joseph Ratzinger, to the effect that given all the “bad” pope of centuries past, obviously all the Holy Spirit can really do is stop us (the cardinals) from ruining the thing completely.
I am frequently repeating that to those who say the Holy Spirit chose the pope (whoever it is) and so one cannot gainsay him. Unless of course they object to someething he says or does.
Joseph O’Leary–the question was submitted by a French journalist, but Benedict responded in Italian.
From Papal negative campaigning and the role of the Holy Spirit, by John L. Allen, Jr.
It is amazing how powerful the Holy Spirit is regarding some matters, and how weak he is regarding others. He performed remarkable feats with the apostles on Pentecost (Acts 2). He has unfailingly preserved the Catholic Church from doctrinal errors regarding faith and morals for almost 2000 years. But when it comes to electing the Vicar of Christ, “Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined.”
As Harold Ross might have said, it “transcends credulence.”
The Spirit is said to have picked Matthias through a lottery. Maybe we should return to that method of choosing bishops, including the bishop of Rome. O ye of little faith!
yes Joseph preservativi is correct Italian. Jam preservatives is “conservanti”.
sorry are “conservanti”
“profilattici” is an older word that we Italian don’t use anymore, we usually use the word “preservativi”.
Was the Hoily Spirit guiding damage control here?
http://www.ncregister.com/daily/condoms_aids_and_research/
Leaving aside the source of that report, the “other” NCR, Edward Green seems to be the main person for the “condoms-are-worse” camp. Any reasons?
Here is an alternate view which explains, among other things, that abstinence “worked” in Uganda because all the people died:
http://www.baptistplanet.com/2009/03/death-condoms-abstinence-in-uganda.html
Don’t forget Norman Hearst. Further links on him:
http://familymedicine.medschool.ucsf.edu/faculty/bios/hears_n.aspx
http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/110/hea092507.htm
Stuart, thx for the Edward Greene info, it fleshes out a little bit the claim he wrote in the First Things article.
He’s not attributing any causation between condom qty and infection rates. He’s noting a correlation.
I’ve seen so many seemingly contradictory claims and studies tossed around in these discussions that I’m convinced that nobody has their arms the entire picture or solution yet.
Sorry – this is a little off subject but Fr. K’s comments about the Holy Spirit reminded me of a life event in my early days. In the middle of a parish council planning meeting – every time the pastor tried to assign certain masses or duties to the older associate priest, the associate would say that he prayed over it and the spirit was telling him not to do it. Finally, in exasperation, the pastor yelled – well, I prayed to the spirit too and he told me your spirit is wrong. Well, it seemed funny when you were there.
The rest of the story – the youngest associate got all of the “unwanted” assignments by both pastor and older associate.
Mr. Gibson,
Is there some particular meaning to your phrase
“Such are the marvelous incongruities of the visit of a Roman pontiff to A PLACE LIKE CAMEROON”.
Gabriel Austin–Not sure you are still checking in here, but if so, please clarify as to what your question is. What particular meaning (I take it you mean offense) could there be? Basically, it’s a Roman pontiff, the uber-European Joseph Ratzinger, product of Old World Catholicism, traveling to a place like Cameroon (or New Guinea or Guatemala or whatever) where the church is young and the culture so different. Universal church, cultural contrasts, hilarity ensues. Is there a sinister take I am missing?