Blog Archives

Condomgate: Pope’s Clarification Is Now Highly Desirable

A word from him would be fully in order now.

Beautiful blog post from the “Reluctant Sinner”.

Its author clearly does not put into question the orthodoxy of the Holy Father; nor does he believe that the Pontiff wanted to start a debate or change things in matters of contraception in any way. But he clearly points out to the fact that the words of “clarification” from the Pontiff (as reported by the never-so-very-safe Lombardi) add fuel to the controversy rather than putting an end to it.

The simple fact is that whilst even the new “explanations” as reported by Father Lombardi do not change anything in the Catholic teaching (or in the Pope’s thinking, come to that) about the matter, this bad habit of reporting single phrases without a context is not doing anyone (particularly the Holy Father, let alone the many confused Catholics) any favour.

The words were carelessly chosen first in the choice of the homosexual/condom scenario to explain that even an evil man can gradually, slowly develop first signs of moral awakening. Yes he can, but if the concept is expressed in this way it will be misunderstood. Then came the extraordinary initiative of the Osservatore Romano to break ranks and publish excerpts of the interview without context or comment, which made things much worse anyway and unleashed the mastiffs of the secular press. Thirdly came the “explanation”, which – whilst not unorthodox in the least – is still such that the untrained secular journalist could, perhaps even in good faith, think that the Holy Father really meant that the female prostitute is justified in using the condom.

It is now, I respectfully dare say, necessary that a carefully worded statement is issued – not by Lombardi but by the Pope himself – clearly saying what is what. This should be done not in order to explain to well-instructed Catholics what they already know, but in order to put some order among the ranks of the not-so-well informed Catholics (the vast majority, nowadays) who could easily be misled from what they think and read that he would have said.

The problem is, in its root, of Vatican making. No doubt about that.

Time to clear the mess once and for all, I think.


Condomgate And The Supposed Impossibility of Not Having Sex

From their friends you'll know them.

Condomgate continues to rage and, if it was necessary, shows with increasing evidence the damage made to the Catholic cause by the careless example chosen by the Holy Father.

As I have (easily) predicted in the past, the discussion is now – among cafeteria catholics and all those who don’t want to accept Church teaching whenever it doesn’t suit them – about the Pope not having justified the use of condoms in certain circumstances, but having justified it anyway or, in some other version, being wrong in not doing it. In both cases, dissent is rearing its ugly head. This is a serious matter because we are not talking of individual weakness here, but of rebellion. Rebellion is the realm of Satan and his minions. A Catholic must accept the teaching and when he sees himself unable to understand it he must pray that he may get the right understanding. If he fails, he must pray more. Submission to the Church is first, understanding of it is second. Credo quia intellegam, non intellego ut credam.

With the basis of reasoning clear, let us examine the condom question again. I have often repeated that a sinful behaviour doesn’t justify particular modalities to carry the sinful activity. It doesn’t, because the activity is unjustified. This must be the cornerstone of every reasoning in the matter.

A killer is not justified in his killing his victims in a less cruel way. A violent husband is not justified in punching his wife whilst wearing boxing gloves. A sodomite is not justified in wearing a condom whilst committing sodomy. Therefore, it can’t be said “Pope Okays use of condom by sodomy” any more than it could be said “Pope Okays use of boxing gloves in beating wife”. This must be clear because these are simple facts (and rather basic facts) of Catholic moral teaching.

Now, the army of “understanding” journos goes on saying “oh well, what about the case of husband and wife? Should the Church not give her assent to the use of a condom by a husband with AIDS to protect his wife’s health by an intercourse we know is going to happen?”. This is as logical as to ask: “Should the Church not give her assent to the use of boxing gloves to protect his wife’s health by an attack we know is going to happen?”.

The answer to this is: the husband with AIDS must refrain from intercourse exactly as the violent husband must refrain from beating his wife. That the use of boxing gloves might be, from the part of a husband, a first step & Co, & Co. doesn’t change an iota in the answer to the questions.

This is where the profoundly secular thinking of the “compassionate” troops clearly shows up. In their reasoning we find the complicity with sin so typical of the anti-Christian world. Wrong behaviour is simply seen as inevitable. People are, in fact, not even asked to avoid it because I can’t credibly say to a violent husband that he is supposed not to beat his wife whilst endorsing his use of boxing gloves.

The simple truth (a truth with necessitates of a Christian prospective to be properly understood) is that not having sex is not more impossible than not beating one’s wife. Whilst there might be difference in the degree of difficulty to achieve this (some people have a very strong sex drive) there is no doubting the fact that none of the two are impossible to achieve.

The lawmakers all the world over reason the same way. They don’t give to imprisoned child rapists sheep and hens so that they have something to rape whilst in jail; nor do they give to the jailed violent husband some substitute animal in order for him to perform his  necessary bodily function of being violent. They both land in a jail with no way to give in to their tendencies and – unsurprisingly – they don’t die.

Similarly, even in the changing world of criminal law felonies remain forbidden even when due to compulsion and the compulsion may diminish the severity of the punishment , but can never exclude it. You can’t decriminalise violent drunken behaviour because one is a drunkard, or child rape because one acted “compulsively”. Simple common sense.

Also, lawmakers never say “let us find authorised ways of practising child raping or bestiality, because they are going to happen anyway”. That’s not how it works. Moral imperatives don’t tolerate justified way of violating them because when you accept the justification, you are destroying the moral imperative. No raping. No domestic violence. No bestiality. No sodomy. No infection of your spouse. These are the only acceptable answers.

Sex is not unavoidable. Sodomy, as exceptionally pervert, is even less unavoidable. Hundreds of millions of people live in chastity every day and he who thinks that the army of singles – even in the most corrupted Western countries – is composed of people who just need to have sex has a very skewed perception of the real world outside of the film industry.

We live in a world where progressive (often: homosexual, or lesbian, or promiscuous) journalists tell us that sex is something that just must happen. Bollocks. Every village of Christian Europe, everywhere, in all centuries past, tells a very different story. Not in the sense that people were saints, but that celibacy was something accepted and lived in a way simply unacceptable (because inconvenient) to the modern thinking by a great number of people.

The argument “but they are going to do it anyway so let us find ways to limit the damage” smacks of saying “but rapes through african militias are going to happen anyway so let us find ways to have the girl raped in a more gentle way”.

He who says that shows that he hasn’t a great problem with rape, after all.









Condomgate Strikes Again!

Integrity and courage in matter of contraception: Paul VI

We are now informed of the following statement from our beloved Lombardi:

I personally asked the pope if there was a serious, important problem in the choice of the masculine over the feminine,” Lombardi said. “He told me no.. The problem is this … It’s the first step of taking responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk of the life of another with whom you have a relationship.

This is if you’re a woman, a man, or a transsexual. We’re at the same point, Lombardi said…

Now from this we learn as follows:

1) What here is all about is: the taking of responsibility towards human life. A chap went around totally not caring whether he would kill himself and many others in the process, but in what might be the first step towards taking responsibility he continues to do what is evil, but at least avoids killing an undetermined number of people.

2) If this is true of a man, it must be true of a woman too as it is not the case that a male prostitute at risk of aids would kill an army of homos, but a female prostitute at risk of aids  wouldn’t kill an army of heteros.  Makes sense.

3) What the Pope (or Lombardi, come to that) still hasn’t said is:

a) that the use of condom is endorsed or justified in any way;

b) that there is a general principle by which the Church says that whenever you are going to put someone in danger, you may use a condom;

c) that Church teaching has been modified in any way.

I am, therefore, at a loss to understand the following:

1) why the fact that the example would apply also to a female prostitute should change anything of what the Pope wanted to say.

2) On which ground this new distinction should be seen as “compassionate” toward the person using the condom. The Church is still saying that the sinner has not to sin. This is compassionate!

Let us make no mistake here: the Church is still saying to the homosexual what She has been saying from the start: repent, and sin no more. To say anything else like: “use a condom, because now I am compassionate” would be to become accessory of the sodomite’s sin.

Let us say it once again: the moral law is not concerned about suggesting ways by which sinning can be made less harmful. The church doesn’t say “if you really, really have to have an abortion, at least avoid using dangerous poisons”. The Church doesn’t say “if you really, really have to have premarital sex, at least be sexually faithful to your girlfriend”, & Co. What the Church does is saying an emphatic “no” to sodomy, to abortion, and to premarital sex.

That as a matter of fact the prostitute sodomite in question might start using condoms as a consequence of a first awakening to the value of human life doesn’t make his use of condom justified. Not in the least. Sodomy is not justified and the Church doesn’t suggest “justified” or “endorsed” ways to deal with what is not justified.


P.s. the continued discussion only enlightens how inappropriate the example was.

After The Storm: Lesser Evil And Double Effect

Still NOT authorised.

After the storm of the past days (promptly ceased after the secular press has discovered that they just got it wrong, but without giving the fact any relevance anywhere near to the screaming with which the “change in Church’s position” was announced) it might be good to say two words about lesser evil and double effect.

The idea of the “lesser evil” is the concept that if one evil is a given, than it is justified to act in a way that the evil is at least minimised. The concept is not a religious, but a political one. The examples are too numerous and too much of a day-to-day occurrence to bother giving them. Diplomacy is made of just that.

Christianity, though, doesn’t think in this way, because morals and politics operate on different planes. In morals, the question cannot be seen in terms of “if you must do evil, at least do the lesser evil”. The moral approach to evil can only be “don’t do evil”. As I have said yesterday, evil will at times be tolerated, but this doesn’t mean that the evil is justified or endorsed in any way.

Catholicism doesn’t know any “lesser evil” doctrine. When Christianity says that you shouldn’t kill, it means exactly this. Discussions about the endorsed way to kill a man are not part of Catholic moral teaching. To use Ronald Reagan’s immortal words: it is not about explaining how to do it, it is about explaining not to do it*.

Catholicism does know, however, the doctrine of the double effect, that I have briefly mentioned yesterday. I suggest that you make yourself acquainted with it, because in the next months or years you’re going to be unnerved by those “Christians by hearsay” who want to teach you about Catholicism and inform you that you are out of date because “The Pope has changed his teaching about condoms”. I feel my adrenaline level rising already.

You can find a nice (and beautifully short) explanation here. When you have read it, you’ll see that this is much different from the case where evil is chosen in the first place and you are dealing with the modalities of the evil. There are no justified modalities of committing evil (I mean here excluding the unavoidable evil coming from the double effect), because the evil act is not justified in the first place.

Let us elaborate on yesterday’s example of the mexican gang member. The Church can’t possibly say “where a Mexican gang member really wants to execute a member of a rival gang, it is justified to kill him with a pistol shot rather than raping and torturing him savagely before finishing him”. This can’t be said because the murdering of the man is not justified. Still, it is undeniable that the torture and rape of the man are further evil acts compared to the murder seen in isolation. Therefore, if the Mexican gang member decides to at least have some respect for the humanity of the rival and murder him with a shot in the head without first raping and torturing him, 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”.

In this case, not even the BBC would say that the Pope has “endorsed in limited cases the shooting in the head”. The teaching is exactly the same and neither torture nor murder are endorsed. Only, it is very rare that redemption simply explodes within a man’s consciousness; rather, there will be in most cases a progressive process of awakening. The male prostitute will, possibly, start using a condom, thus avoiding adding a potential massacre to the sodomy.

Why, then, all the mess? Because the matter of double effect and lesser evil cannot be simply implied by quoting a couple of sentences in a book without causing a great stir in people accustomed to a more brutal and simplified (particularly if journalists) way of thinking. It might be that the book in his entirety is such that no wrong impression is caused, but there can be no doubt that if you mention homos and condoms after the interviewer has asked whether the Church is, then, “not opposed in principle to the use of condoms” you are clearly looking for trouble.

What I am angry at the press for is not that the statement might have misled them, but that:

1) they don’t bother to ask the Vatican first, and
2) no one seems to notice that Catholic moral teaching just doesn’t change.

I mean, if a Muslim tells me that he has heard that the Pope has changed the Church’s position about condoms I can still understand the poor chap. Less so if he is a Catholic (of sort). Much less so if he is a journalist. But if they are Catholic journalists, then we are really in a bad shape.


*A short prayer for the Gipper is in order here, I think…

%d bloggers like this: