“A Christian can never remain silent,” said Pope Benedict upon his arrival in Cameroon last week. But sometimes I wonder if he wouldn’t be better served by doing just that. (Article: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/03/26/world/AP-EU-Vatican-Pope-Message-Woes.html)
I wrote a post several weeks ago about the controversy Pope Benedict sparked in pardoning ex-communicated, Holocaust-denying Bishops. He sparked angry sentiments from the world’s Islamic community by making accusatory remarks about the violent nature of the Islamic faith back in 2006. And this week he’s back in the headlines with a move no less consternating or any easier to extricate himself--and the Vatican--from.
The controversial comment came in a statement just before his departure on a weeklong tour through Africa. In addressing the continent’s long and difficult struggle with HIV/AIDS, Pope Benedict argued that the problem "cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem.” (Emphasis mine.)
Now the Church’s position on condoms is no secret—avoid them. Exercise sexual abstinence and fidelity in marriage instead. There is truth to this message and nothing wrong with taking this position (although it’s all but proven that preaching abstinence does not work as well as handing out free condoms from a practical or public health standpoint).
But I do take issue with the second half of his statement. Nowhere, ever, has there been evidence that condom use has increased or even contributed to the spread of HIV. His comment is clearly rooted in personal belief and not scientific evidence (or reality). The tragedy is in its potential to undermine millions of dollars and years of effort put in by community organizations, NGOs, and even other faith based organizations that have been working hard to help alleviate the strain HIV has put on African societies.
France, the Netherlands, Germany, and the UN’s agency dedicated to AIDS work, have all come down on the Pope’s remarks. The BBC was even prompted to ask the question, “Is Catholicism good for Africa?” I find all of these responses reasonable given the potential ramifications in this situation. Governments and aid groups alike are already facing incredible difficulties in educating the general population on the facts of HIV/AIDS. Still, setting aside the argument over the most effective form of containing the epidemic, it is plainly irresponsible for a figure as revered as the Pope—someone drawing crowds of tens of thousands in places like Angola—to propagate such untrue information.
My concern in this is less for Benedict himself and his legacy as the 265th Pope, than it is for the Catholic Church as a whole. Its main PR man doesn’t quite have the political finesse of his predecessor and seems to be more like a bull in a China shop lately. I don’t doubt the benevolence or good intentions in his commitment to his faith, but he doesn’t do himself many favors by his lack of tact. (One source commented on the fact that he was chosen for the papacy in part for his longtime status as a Vatican insider and respected theologian. Unfortunately, the intellectuals behind organizations don’t always have the charisma and social capacity to pull off the public relations as well.)
I haven’t heard much on the issue since the comment broke the news. I admit, I’m crossing my fingers that there isn’t any more to report. I’m just thinking about the African women who have been trying to convince their husbands of the wisdom in using condoms, who now have to place their word against the Pope’s….
Other articles referenced:
“Pope tells Africa ‘condoms wrong’” - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7947460.stm
“Pope warns Angola of witchcraft” - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7956460.stm
“Pope: Condoms “Increase” AIDS Endemic in Africa” - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509488,00.html
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
G,
No one ever said Benedict was a PR master, and his reinstatement of the controversial and schismatic bishops was so poorly executed it was moronic. These bishops never had any intentions of accepting Vatican II and if the Pope and his advisors had done simple research, they very well could've avoided the pain all together.
As for the condom thing, I agree with your position-but the Church, as a rule, is not concerned with earthly practicality, but calling the flock to a higher, non-temporal ideal, which would in this case be to abstain from sexual activity, etc, which, in the word and world of the Kingdom of God, is desirable. I take everything the Pope says with this in mind.
That being said, Catholicism on the African continent is different from American Catholicism-they tend to be very devout, etc, so I do see the quandary you mention of pitting spouse against Pope. I think his thinking was-condoms say to HIV patients that they can still have sex, but even condoms don't work 100% of the time, so I could see him thinking that the availability encourages the promiscuity, and eventually, the condom will break or slip off or God knows what, so even condoms do not COMPLETELY stop the spread of HIV. Is the Pope tactical or reality-based? No. But the Church has always, sometimes to it's disadvantage, been concerned with the eternal world and law as it should be in the ideal society, not the reality in our "temporal existence" as they would say.
I would tend to agree with you that the Pope's positions on many subjects show more concern for the eternal and for the earthly. I personally feel that Pope Benedict has acted in bizarre ways too many times in recent years and has taken a way harsher line on many important issues than the previous pope, him less popular and more controversial. His and the church's attitude towards contraception in particular seems antiquated to me. However, as I was looking for an article to comment on, this interesting piece in the Washington post by Harvard researcher Edward Green came to my attention. you can find it at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html
I was surprised at the conclusions it came to as the author noted that quite a few academics studied the matter and their research apparently showed that the seemingly intuitive conclusion that "some condom use ought to be better than no use" is not true and that the Pope may be right after all, albeit for the wrong reasons...
I think whether the Vatican's dedication to a higher ideal rather than what practicality sometimes calls for is a debatable topic which has both pros and cons. To me what seems to have happened is that the Pope simply used the wrong terms to get a message across. That message being the Catholic Church's stance that sex is an act meant to be done only to produce a child within the bounds of marriage. If this were the reality there would be no need for condoms, and that is the point I think the Pope was trying to make. He simply should have said that instead of "condoms are bad".
Being that a lot of the world agrees with the Catholic Church's stance on just about everything, I see this as not much more than blunder in wording, something world leaders, and us average Joes, do all the time, and is quite excusable.
Post a Comment