66 Comments

• eiriamach | Dec 09, 2010, 10:19 AM EST

  It was also John Henry Newman who wrote, "I will embrace whatever I at length feel certain is the truth, if ever I come to be certain." The history and tradition you cite is many centuries older than the formation of the Roman Catholic Church; it is the heritage in common of all Christianity, as are the writings of church fathers and centuries of philosophical debate among Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the medieval universities. To be cautious about claiming certainty in understanding this often contradictory heritage is the responsibility of all. Even Protestants ceased "protesting" centuries ago, ceased asking who was right about which point of doctrine. The pope himself obviously thought that Timothy, whom you cite, made mistakes, at least when he wrote about the sort of women priests and bishops should marry! The only point to answering the "Who is right?" question would be to award the appearance of authority to one or the other, but as I've tried to suggest, Christ's religion is not a form of authority and gains no authority from its embrace of truth. It's a community of service whose wealth lies in resources for the life of the spirit and the sanctification of a world that suffers from an excess of authority and a dearth of freedom.

• Carroll09 | Dec 08, 2010, 05:41 PM EST

  ...Is it so unreasonable, therefore, to believe or expect that the Holy Spirit is still doing His job with regard to Sacred Tradition as He must have done for the first four centuries of the Church’s life? Also, a final point, Bibles are certainly not immune from being influenced by vested interests - I pointed out one thing earlier that Luther added to the Bible to suit his doctrine; the Protestant “reformers” rejected a number of books and passages from the Bible which had been included in the canon of Scripture from the fourth century, not to mention the fact that the early Church Fathers had used the Old Testament deuterocanonicals in their teachings, quoting them side by side with the canonicals as early as A.D.70. Eiriamach, I thank you too for the dialogue - my position hasn’t changed, maybe yours hasn’t either, but we have some food for thought! I do think, however, with all the talk we have done about history and tradition, it is worth bearing in mind the testimony of one of Church’s most famous converts from Anglicanism, Blessed John Henry Newman, who converted after long reflection and study having become convinced that (in his own words) one who goes deep into history ceases to be Protestant.

• Carroll09 | Dec 08, 2010, 05:40 PM EST

  ...Luther did, for example, when he put in the word "alone" after "faith" in Romans 3:28- the word "alone" does not appear in St Jerome's Latin text - an alteration which has changed the course of Christianity dramatically. Or how can we be sure that Christ actually said "it is better to give than to receive" as St Paul said in Acts 20:35 - Paul didn't know Christ, wasn't an eyewitness, and was therefore quoting someone who may have been quoting someone (etc. etc.) who was quoting Christ. Is it because we trust the Holy Spirit that we can take Paul at his word? Not to mention the fact that it was the bishops of the Church who, in the fourth century, decided which books would be included in the canon of Scripture- how can we be sure that it wasn’t vested interests which dictated what should be included and what should not? If it was vested interests which are responsible for Scripture as well as Sacred Tradition, the question must be asked - where was the Holy Spirit? Was Christ lying when He said that the Spirit would abide with the Church forever? Interestingly, it is only through trusting the Church, which survived and taught for four centuries through Sacred Tradition, can one know that Sacred Scripture is the inspired Word of God...[continued]

• Carroll09 | Dec 08, 2010, 05:39 PM EST

  But it [Sacred Tradition] was presumably ok for the early Christians who, for nearly four centuries, did not have the Bible as we have it today, since the canon of Scripture was not finally settled upon until the councils of Carthage and Hippo. The early Christians did not have the written Word to instruct them (apart from the Old Testament). What were they relying on? Preaching. And they could confidently rely on the teaching of the Church even before one word of the New Testament was written precisely because Christ had guaranteed that the Holy Spirit would guide them to speak the truth. St Paul exhorted people on a number of occasions to hold fast to the traditions that they have learned by word or letter (e.g. 2Tim 2:2, 2Th 2:15). Indeed, St Paul, in the former example, says that the faithful have been taught by him through many witnesses (St Paul himself was not a first-hand witness of the things which Christ said and did), so how can we be sure that these earliest Christians were not simply forwarding vested interests? Surely we can only know this through Christ's promise of the Holy Spirit. Incidentally, if the Christian teaching was transmitted by men with vested interests which would not allow for the faithful transmission of Sacred Tradition, then surely the same argument can be made about Sacred Scripture: could the writers not put their own "spin" on things?...[continued]

• eiriamach | Dec 08, 2010, 04:51 AM EST

  I did answer the question. If you cannot show me where it is revealed, then you are asking me to trust 2,000 years' worth of memory, passed along from one male with a vested interest to another male with a vested interest in keeping the priesthood exclusive of people who are different from them. Why should I suspect that vested interests are at work? Look at what is happening today with refusals in RC and one group in AC to share the "authority" of the priesthood. Why would any rational person who can easily read the words of Christ as inclusive, not exclusive, believe that exclusion with such destructive results for the Body of Christ was Christ's intention? It simply does not add up. Exclusively-male authority has had its day and been found wanting. Can I be sure? No, and that's been my point--no mere mortal human being can have the kind of certainty you claim to have. To think you can know for sure is surely tempting; as Ernest Hemingway once said, "Isn't it pretty to think so?" Nonetheless, this conversation has helped clarify, so it's been good. Thanks for the dialogue!

• Carroll09 | Dec 07, 2010, 06:13 PM EST

  My fundamental question to you over the past few days was, how can you claim or be sure that Christ never mentioned such and such a thing? How are you arriving at this judgement? Is it because it is not mentioned in the Bible? And, if so, is that really a good enough reason? This is the fourth time I've put these questions to you; I'm not prepared to keep going round in circles with this, but I think it is an important question.

• eiriamach | Dec 07, 2010, 10:22 AM EST

  As for your question "How do you know...?" Surely you do not claim that Christ left secret unrecorded orders excluding some from the priesthood? You ask, "How can you be sure that it is human rules rather than authentic Christian teaching which 'have controlled access'? This "Christian teaching" just IS of human origin: you conflate "truth" with "authority," the authority of tradition or infallibility-- little difference. Call it faith, but realize it is faith in MEN. "To your point about schism: Anglicans have set up no "chair in opposition." Anglican hierarchy ends with bishops; decisions issue from the worldwide communion; Anglicans pray the Nicene Creed with a valid claim to apostolicity. Those who are leaving the AC or ECUSA for RC affiliation had not considered the ordination of women/gay males invalid; they had objected to conferring episcopal authority on them. Now they must label their own ordinations, along with those of female/gay colleagues, invalid until performed by Roman rite. Their trade-off for refusing to share authority with women is male authority adhering to a tradition that arrogantly considers itself unerring in truth. They must aver, falsely, they were never priests and that all sacraments they administered were invalid! But like Christ himself, Anglicans will watch them leave if they cannot deal with the identity of Christ in our time, in all its daunting homo/ hetero/ female/ male reality.

• Carroll09 | Dec 07, 2010, 07:09 AM EST

  You clearly misunderstand the meaning of Sacred Tradition - it is much more significant and reliable than you make out. Any chance you might answer my previous questions about how you can be so sure that Christ didn't say such and such a thing? Is "because it's not in the Bible" as good enough reason? Or how you can be so sure that it is the Church's position that is wrong and not that of the world? How do you know that the exodus to which you refer (in fact, the Church's membership as well as ordinations to the priesthood are consistently increasing worldwide) is as a result of the Church making mistakes and not the influence of the secular world which tells them (according to its fleeting trends) that the Church is outdated, behind the times, too restrictive? It comes back to the question, to what extent ought the Church change its teaching just to keep the people happy or because some find it hard to take. The Good Shepherd, as I noted earlier, cares so much for His sheep - would leave the ninety-nine to go after the one which is lost - yet those who reject Him and those whom He sent into the world, because they won't accept the truth (as in John 6), are allowed to stray from the fold; the Good Shepherd freely lets them go. Reading John 6, one could be forgiven for thinking that the Good Shepherd is not being true to His name like the psalm claims.

• eiriamach | Dec 07, 2010, 02:18 AM EST

  (Con'd) To claim otherwise is to dally with pride. Continuing dialogue might restore some sanity and credibility to Rome. As a conciliatory gesture, the Vatican could reopen the dialogue of ARCIC, on "reconciliation of ministries; the ordination of women; moral questions; continuing questions of authority, including . . . the role of the laity in decision-making within the Church" [Lambeth 1988]. But if it takes the line you lay out, the global results of the Anglican defections are greater polarization, disappearance of ecumenism, and politicization of religious sects. Christianity moves further from the "one" of the Creed and Christ's prayer. Reformist RCs suffer decisive setback. Those who crave the comfort of authoritative pronouncements are relieved of dealing with challenging questions; they become no less intolerant of ambiguity and struggle in the search for truth. One thing strikes me as most strange in all this: RC hierarchy seem content, even happy, to see the exodus of so many. That looks like an unholy happiness, directly contrary to the mission Christ bequeathed. To slow the exodus, they would need to take seriously the possibility that they have made mistakes, not only in handling abuse cases but also, for ex., in pronouncing women in "grave sin," excommunicated, for receiving the very same sacrament that confers on men the grace to call others together in Christ. (No doubt this was a sop to the defectors.)

• eiriamach | Dec 07, 2010, 02:06 AM EST

  Even if you could establish a history of consistent teaching on priesthood and social issues, finding such teaching right or wrong would still be a task of reason since blind obedience merits us nothing. And "We've always done it this way" is the least logical reason for continuing to do anything; it's a blunt rejection of the call to justify. So the existence of a tradition of teaching in itself is no reason to believe that the teaching is sufficient in truth. The ancients did not know HIV, nor did they have the means to prevent the suffering of a gravely handicapped newborn unable to assimilate nourishment, whose only destiny is slowly starving, screaming in pain, and instilling lifelong guilt in parents who, blindly obedient, knowingly brought such a pregnancy to term. Tradition unaided by facts and a reasoning approach to revelation yields no help for them. Your claim to an unerring tradition dichotomizes falsely: you construe my views as those of "the world" only because they differ from your tradition. I do not take my thinking about these matters from majority opinion. Matt. 10:26: "Nothing is concealed that will not be revealed, nor secret that will not be known." We may infer that before end times, we lack full revelation and perfect knowledge; thus we lack a basis for complete or definitive certainty in truth. Tradition has no special claim to trust. It's simply the position of greatest comfort.

• Carroll09 | Dec 05, 2010, 05:31 PM EST

  ...Or, as a final example among many, Optatus who, in A.D.367 wrote: "In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would presume to set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner...Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church".

• Carroll09 | Dec 05, 2010, 05:30 PM EST

  ...Also, the dogma of papal infallibility has nothing to do with this argument - again, the Early Church Fathers clearly held the belief of the primacy of Peter and his successors. Pope St Clement (the 3rd successor of St Peter) wrote in A.D. 95: "Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret...If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect". St Cyprian in A.D.251 wrote: "The Lord says to Peter: 'I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church'...On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"...[continued]

• Carroll09 | Dec 05, 2010, 05:28 PM EST

  Regarding my first point and your response to it - I ask again, how do you know that "Christ gave no such warrant"? Because Scripture doesn't record it? Is that a good enough basis? Where does Scripture say of itself that it is the sole rule of faith? Where does it say that everything that Christ said and did is contained therein? How can you be sure that it is human rules rather than authentic Christian teaching which "have controlled access"? Regarding my second point and your response to it - how do you, as I asked earlier, know that it is the Church's position on abortion, contraception, marriage which is wrong and not the world's? If you look into the teachings of the Early Church Fathers you will find that the Church is teaching what they taught, and what they taught came directly from the Apostles, to whom the Father sent the Holy Spirit to guide in the truth always, not just for one or two centuries. So there most certainly is a divine warrant for the Church's teachings, as there is a divine warrant and obligation on the Church not to change its teachings just because the world says they're wrong. Regarding my third question and your response to it - if, as you claim, I have reduced truth to authority (which I don't really accept), then it can only be because my authority and that of the Church is Christ, Who is Truth...[continued]

• eiriamach | Dec 05, 2010, 09:12 AM EST

  1) Nowhere in scripture is it recorded that Christ decreed exclusions from the priesthood. Human rules have controlled access, and these have varied greatly by era and locale. 2) "The Word is the same yesterday, today, and forever," yes, but human minds limit the meanings of The Word. Recent interpretation has founded doctrines about sexuality and intimate relationships -- abortion, contraception, male-female-only unions, etc. These are recent, not ancient as you claim--little more than a century's worth, not 2000 years'. Where is the divine warrant for such judgments and rules? And when they prove injurious to human development and the social fabric, have you nothing but "authority" to assert in their defense? "Authority" does not mean "truth." Claims to authority are paltry substitutes when reason fails to win the consent of reasonable people. Have the one-third leaving the RC Church today hardened their hearts against truth? No, they are in search of it. We turn to God not as priests, bishops, and popes with special access, but in the full garb of our questioning humanity, and it is our answering to each other that stands the audit, our willingness to engage in the dialogue, not our obedience to a human interpretation under the aegis of "authority."

• eiriamach | Dec 05, 2010, 08:57 AM EST

  3)No, change no teaching simply because some find it difficult or detestable. (Your example of the Eucharist, however, poses no doctrinal disparity between RC and Anglican minds--see Lambeth on this point.) Open a discussion with those who question whether you have too hastily limited your understanding of "truth" as it pertains to human nature and social relations. You might learn, as suggested earlier, some of Christ's truth in dialogue with witnesses on the outside. There is a way back from the dark cellar that the doctrine of papal infallibility has driven RC clergy into on such matters, if they can transcend the Thomistic mold and re-examine the meaning of "truth" in light of post-medieval understandings of how language works ("I see now as through a glass darkly," not perfectly). You have reduced "truth" to "authority," and as a result cannot grasp the meaning of the Word as it lives and offers itself ever anew to the world's questions and problems. You've made it a dead letter and given it a fundamentalist reading. Sure, what's dead cannot change, but that's not the sense of "unchanging" that Christ had in mind, is it?

• Carroll09 | Dec 04, 2010, 06:49 PM EST

  Firstly, how do you know "Christ gave no such warrant"? Secondly, truth is a living entity, true, which is precisely why Christ appointed the twelve Apostles and they their successors that the Truth which is Christ Himself, an unchanging Truth, would be proclaimed to the world until He comes again. "He that hears you hears me, and he that despises you despises me" - a living Word, a living Truth; yet the Word is the same yesterday, today and forever. Thirdly, you have not answered the question I have asked twice so far [at the end of both of my previous posts], regarding the Church changing its teaching because some find it difficult - yet you are so convinced that it's the Church that is wrong simply because some feel excluded by what it teaches. If Christ, for example, meant (as the Apostles & Church Fathers believed, and the Church since then has professed) that we truly consume His Body and Blood in the Eucharist, is it right for the Church to change its clear and unaltered teaching just because some don't like it? Because some detest that doctrine, does that necessarily mean that the Church is wrong? Is what the world wants necessarily right simply because we don't want to offend anyone, even though it may reject that which has been revealed by Christ to His Church, and professed by the Church for two thousand years? The secular world which so often utterly rejects Our Blessed Lord is hardly a reliable judge on matters of Christian Truth.

• eiriamach | Dec 04, 2010, 05:38 PM EST

  When a NY Times reporter asked Episcopal Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori what led her parents to convert from Roman Catholicism, she replied, "It was before Vatican II had any influence in local parishes, and I think my parents were looking for a place where wrestling with questions was encouraged rather than discouraged" (11/19/06). I have a similar yearning as I read your replies to my request for a justification: that's just what RC doctrine is, you say, and those who question it simply do not belong. I note that you avoid construing the pope's exclusion of women and gay priests as in accord with Christ's truth. Rightly so, since Christ gave no such warrant. I understand "truth" as a living entity, whose meaning a human mind may grasp tentatively through dialogue and the seminal power of language, rather than as a dead letter whose meaning is forever delimited by human pronouncement. Trust, like truth, also arises in "wrestling with questions." How can a person of tolerance whose understanding of truth is tentative and dialogical trust an all-male group to have a divine sanction for excluding those who do not share their gender/alleged sexuality? If Christ were here in the flesh, I believe he would drive them out faster than He drove out the moneychangers from the temple.

• Carroll09 | Dec 03, 2010, 07:15 PM EST

  The invitation the Pope issued is not at all the same scenario as when Anglicans converted in the past. This is not just about converting to Catholicism, but it is about the setting up of an Anglican Ordinariate within the Church, so it is most appropriate that Pope Benedict issued such an invitation. Next, where does Anglicanorum Coetibus mention gender and sexual orientation? Nowhere - it mentions that all moves towards an Anglican Ordinariate, as I said earlier, must comply with Canon Law and the affirmation that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the authoritative expression of the Catholic faith. Granted, that infers that only males can be ordained Catholic priests, as has always been the case, but it raises the question again, to what point do you expect the Church to be inclusive? Because what you seem to believe to be inclusion is only an illusion if it comes at the expense of Christian truth. Also, the prayer "that they may be one", how did Christ envisage that they would be one? They would be one when they believe in Christ through the Word brought to them by the Apostles and their successors, who are consecrated in the truth. We are one only in an authentic following of Christ, not through an attitude of "whatever you're having yourself". And I would repeat just what I said earlier: why would one decide to join the Catholic Church if they are not prepared to accept its teachings? Presumably, one decides to join the Catholic Church because they believe that it is the Church that Christ founded and that it teaches the truth. Conversely, if one does not like, accept, or believe what the Church is teaching anyway, why would they want to join it or, again, why should they expect the Church to be inclusive at the expense of Christian truth, just so they may be accepted?

• eiriamach | Dec 03, 2010, 02:56 PM EST

  Again, the pope issued the invitation. The Anglicans did not "decide to join" and then propose an Anglican ordinariate to the pope. While individuals may have knocked at the door in the past, historically, these cases have been handled individually. The invitation came on papal initiative. So the question is quite properly laid at the door of the Vatican: why did Benedict preselect on the basis of gender and sexual orientation rather than, for example, on the basis of ability and desire to serve Christ? Christ issued no call to teaching and ministry "to heterosexual males only--no others need apply." He shed His blood for all and included all in the "oneness" that he prayed for His church to sustain. The contrast between Christ's approach and Benedict's is striking, and it's up to Benedict and his colleagues, not the ranks of the excluded, to justify the exclusion. It seems to us on the outside that Benedict intended the consolidation of conservative political alliances against the expanding social and legal equality of LGBTs and women, rather than a wider sharing of Christ's truth. What truth of Christ's requires such exclusions, and what purpose could justify fulfilling the desires of some precisely BY explicitly rejecting others?

• Carroll09 | Dec 03, 2010, 07:55 AM EST

  You claim that "Anglicanorum Coetibus" was actually an exercise in rejection. This is not the case - why do you have such a problem with those who wish to be Catholic having to accept the central teachings of the Catholic Church - that is what "Anglicanorum Coetibus" requires, and it is hardly too much to expect for an aspiring Catholic to actually believe what the Catholic Church teaches. Everything in relation to "Anglicanorum Coetibus" will take place within the norms of Canon Law, and there must be a profession that "the Catechism of the Catholic is the authoritative expression of the Catholic faith" (A.C.1:5). So, surely the question arises- why would one decide to join the Catholic Church if they are not prepared to accept its teachings? Presumably, one decides to join the Catholic Church because they believe that it is the Church that Christ founded and that it teaches the truth. Conversely, if one does not like, accept, or believe what the Church is teaching anyway, why would they want to join it or, again, why should they expect the Church to be inclusive at the expense of Christian truth, just so they may be accepted?

• eiriamach | Dec 02, 2010, 07:53 PM EST

  You write, "For those who claim to follow Christ, being inclusive is worthless if it comes at the expense of Christian truth." Including is an act of the will. An inclusive person does not first demand that the other conform with his or her limited understanding of truth. If we are all one in Christ ("neither male nor female, neither Jew Gentile"), then some of Christ's truth may be found in turning to each other in mutual openness. Christ allowed those who could not deal with his identity, his truth, to walk away, yes, but in October 2009, when the pope extended an invitation to Anglican clergy, he did not patiently endure rejection; he practiced rejection by identifying narrowly those he deemed worthy of inclusion: heterosexual males only. What "Christian truth" was he defending in his exclusive invitation, which contributed to the disparagement of gay youth, who need affiliation and acceptance, and of women, whom Christ called to serve no less fully than men?

• Carroll09 | Dec 02, 2010, 11:13 AM EST

  I think you ought to look at what the Church teaches about homosexuals and homosexual acts. People often point to Christ as the perfect example of an inclusive person, but He was never inclusive at the expense of the truth (look at John 6, for example, where certain disciples didn't like what he was teaching: Christ let them walk away, even though He was telling them how they could gain eternal life). The Church, likewise, and contrary to what you seem to think, teaches that all persons must be treated with compassion, respect and sensitivity - the person and the acts which a person may choose to engage in are two different matters, and the Church makes this distinction. So, do you expect the Church to be inclusive even for all those who blatantly reject the Word of God that the Church has taught for two thousand years, or is the Church better off doing for the world what Christ Himself charged it with doing: preaching the Word of God to the ends of the earth. For those who claim to follow Christ, being inclusive is worthless if it comes at the expense of Christian truth.

• eiriamach | Dec 02, 2010, 07:37 AM EST

  No, it's not the lesser of two evils. It's a positive good in itself though not a "good" you can approve of. Gays are human beings of full moral worth, equal to that of any other human being. As such, they are fully capable of moral agency. You may exclude them from your church and priesthood, but Christ loves them, and they contribute love, faithfulness, concern for others, and the work of God in this world. If they choose to remain celibate, their celibacy is not worth less than that of a heterosexual. Like everyone they benefit from association with others trying to do the same. If your church cannot be inclusive, it may as well stay on the path the bishops have chosen toward becoming another conservative partisan political lobbying group (lobbying against anti- discrimination laws to protect LGBTs, for example) so that no one suffers from the delusion that RC offers resources for the life of the spirit.

• Carroll09 | Dec 02, 2010, 06:54 AM EST

  So, if it's the lesser of two evils it's ok?

• eiriamach | Dec 01, 2010, 09:58 PM EST

  Oh, let me hasten to add that I'm not a Kantian either. I offered a Kantian principle of moral reasoning simply to demonstrate that I am no relativist. There's more than one path to doing the right thing, but all paths require taking on the responsibility for thinking the choice through and never simply trusting someone else to do our thinking for us.

• eiriamach | Dec 01, 2010, 09:46 PM EST

  Carroll09, you argue an "either/or" fallacy: either I agree with your view of morality, or I am a moral relativist. But I neither agree with your position, nor am I a relativist. Also, I agree that "the world does not decide" whether Catholic teachings are right or wrong. We don't decide what's right by taking a vote. Lacking a divine voice in our age, we rely on our observations and reasoning, objective standards such as natural law and the living Word. If we fail to use these, both to arrive at moral judgments AND to decide who--if anyone--is an "authority" on such matters, we fail as moral beings. Matters of morality are not primarily matters of "truth." They are decisions. We decide which values and behaviors to embrace and which to reject, and we decide which truths, i.e., facts, are relevant to those decisions. In that process, it may be comforting to think that Christ gave one Church special dibs on "truth," but on my reading, Christ expected us all, including LGBTs, to make responsible choices. The sex worker who adopts Kant's principle and decides to treat others as ends in themselves, not only as means to his own ends, makes a moral choice in protecting his clients. Maybe that's not quite common sense, but it is good sense, and I trust that Christ would not reject it.

• Carroll09 | Dec 01, 2010, 04:20 PM EST

  Perhaps I should clarify: I did not mean concerned as in worried, but rather with reference to the point of view of your argument. This teaching does not defy common sense about morality - maybe it defies what the world might call common sense or a moral choice. But the world does not decide that the Church is wrong, because Christ, not the world, is the Church's moral standard - measuring up solely to the world's values only leads to moral relativism, which is precisely why there is so much opposition in the secular world to the moral teachings of the Church. As Bishop Fulton Sheen said, I want an authority that is right, not when the world is right, but which is right when the world is wrong. That authority is the Catholic Church - that does not mean believing everything blindly, and I certainly don't; so, yes, pause and think - but also trust that Christ was telling the truth when He promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to teach truth always.

• eiriamach | Dec 01, 2010, 07:12 AM EST

  Carroll09, you're mistaken; I am concerned with Catholic moral teaching, which has had a devastating impact on the working classes of the US and which may well be the undoing of the nation if Catholics continue to cast votes out of obedience to their prelates. Freedom is not only at the center of the American system; it is also essential to moral right or wrong. When one is coerced by law to do X or not to do X, there is no moral praise in doing or not doing X and no blame because there is no freedom to choose. That's the problem with any system controlled by any church teachings. No intention matters when the force of law constrains the action. Such a nation does not become more moral or virtuous. On the contrary, people lose their capacity to make moral choices and the clergy becomes inordinately powerful. Ireland has found itself in this situation more than once in its history. So whenever Catholic teaching defies common sense about morality, as it does in this case, I ask us to pause and do some thinking.

• Carroll09 | Nov 29, 2010, 05:45 PM EST

  Eiriamach- you are obviously not concerned with Catholic moral teaching, but that is the point of view with which I am approaching this subject, and I respect the teaching of the Church on such matters. The Church still teaches, despite what some in the media would like us to think, that condoms or other forms of artificial contraception are not morally permissible, and thus (as Pope Benedict said) cannot be regarded as a real or moral solution to the AIDS problem. Having a good intention when doing something does not mean that the act itself is morally justifiable.

• eiriamach | Nov 29, 2010, 03:03 PM EST

  Hairsplitting, Carroll09: yes, we all know that "the path to hell is paved with good intentions," but the sex worker's taking responsibility is not in that category of self-delusion. It is not a case of intending to do good and causing harm instead. Anyone who, consciously and deliberately, takes steps to protect another person from harm that he or she may inflict acts rightly, justly, honorably, responsibly, morally. Using a condom is a responsible action whenever an undesirable pregnancy or a transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) is possible. Intention has much to do with it. If a rapist uses a condom simply to avoid leaving DNA that will put police on the path to arresting him, he takes a self-interested decision which only unintentionally helps his victim (if the victim survives the rape--many do not). But deliberately taking a precaution to protect another--this is certainly not immoral, nor is it morally neutral. It's simply the right thing to do, whatever the relationship or absence of relationship the person has.

• Carroll09 | Nov 29, 2010, 10:00 AM EST

  The point of the analogy, and well you know it, is that just because a particular action is well-intended, it does not necessarily follow that such an action itself is actually morally right. That is to say that the "step towards a moralisation" which the Pope spoke of is not necessarily a morally justified action itself.

• eiriamach | Nov 26, 2010, 11:45 PM EST

  Someone should comment on Carroll09's and Janet Smith's analogy between having sex and robbing a bank. I find it a loathsome comparison. I wonder what kind of people think of having sex as analogous to robbing a bank. Could their paradigm be rape or pederasty, which robs victims of trust, peace of mind, innocence? Can a normal person think that using a condom is like using an unloaded gun (unsheathed penis = loaded gun), a thief deceiving or coercing to get what he wants? Ugh! It's a revealing, though false and perverted, analogy.

• eiriamach | Nov 26, 2010, 11:24 AM EST

  Morality just IS taking responsibility, so there is no line to be drawn between the gay prostitute's use of a condom to avoid spreading HIV and his practicing moral or "humane sexuality." The decision to use a condom IS a moral decision and neglecting the condom IS immoral. The pope can split hairs to avoid the appearance of contradicting earlier Vatican pronouncements on "matters of faith and morals," but common sense dictates that taking responsibility for one's own reproductive capability and vulnerability to STDs and--in the case of women--possibility of infecting offspring with STDs is the only moral approach to human sexuality in the 21st century. The pope is late indeed in accepting condom use since millions have already died and others have been born infected while the Vatican insisted that the Catholic Church alone was the divinely appointed judge of what is "natural." Doesn't any thinking person simply know that taking responsibility for the consequences of his or her sexual activity is the "natural" thing to do? Given the fragile state of the planet and the multifarious threats to its human population, most adults long ago recognized the morality of barrier contraceptives. It would be good to hear as a next step that the RC bishops will no longer oppose distribution of condoms in sex ed classes for teenagers. Learning to take responsibility is not only a condition of morality but also a definition of "adult."

• Portia777 | Nov 26, 2010, 09:32 AM EST

  Women are still chattels in the eyes of this Catholic cult. The pope is a man in a dress and not infalible- if he is hearing voices, then he belongs in a mental institution like they do with others who claim to hear voices.What amazes me is that some people in this world have no minds of their own and rely on a man in a dress who has no life experiences due to him living in a bubble. If he is a man of god, a loving god who agrees in free will, then why is the pope creating laws?

• barneyjo | Nov 25, 2010, 09:03 AM EST

  Happy to acknowledge your view,but, regrettably I cannot concur. Many thanks for the reading reference which I will follow through on

• Carroll09 | Nov 24, 2010, 06:57 PM EST

  If you're interested, there is some enlightening reading and links on lightoftheworldbook DOT blogspot DOT com

• Carroll09 | Nov 24, 2010, 06:50 PM EST

  Why would he even partially sanction something that he says almost in the same breath is not a real or moral solution to the problem? Why did he need to qualify his position? Well, before he made the comment about a male prostitute (which was only an example) he was talking about the "banalisation of sexuality" and the fixation on condoms contributing to the attitude "of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love". So the decision of a male prostitute to use a condom may be a first step to an assumption of responsibility, a move towards a sexuality as the expression of love. It's the prostitute's reasoning that MAY be laudable - the desire to protect the other person - that does not mean that the act of using the condom is itself morally justifiable. Janet Smith of Sacred Heart Seminary gave the following analogy, which is called in theological terms "subjective intention": "If someone was going to rob a bank and was determined to use a gun, it would be better for that person to use a gun that had no bullets in it [for that] would reduce the likelihood of fatal injuries. But it is not the task of the Church to instruct potential bank robbers how to rob banks more safely and certainly not the task of the Church to support programs of providing potential bank robbers with guns that could not use bullets. Nonetheless, the intent of a bank robber to rob a bank in a way that is safer for employees and customers of the bank may indicate an element of moral responsibility that could be a step towards eventual understanding of the immorality of bank robbing".

• barneyjo | Nov 24, 2010, 06:12 PM EST

  Sorry, I am bound to disagree, and this time, profoundly (though I hope respectfully) with your view. If an enhanced condition of moralisation coupled with an effective limitation of the risk of the spread of HIV is the preferred end, and the use of condoms in this case is one potential means of attainment to that end, then the absolute logic of that process is that the Holy Father has given partial sanction to the use of condoms. Ultimately, if there was no change in his view, why did he need to qualify his position in the course of the interview with the Journalist??

• Carroll09 | Nov 24, 2010, 08:44 AM EST

  But, again, he is not commenting on the morality of using a condom (his views are clear on this), but rather on the reasoning of the person who takes such a step. It's not giving approval to condom use He clearly does not see it as a real or moral solution. It is not to say that the reasoning of the person is morally justifiable, but merely that it could - from a psychological point of view - be a step TOWARDS a moralisation.

• barneyjo | Nov 24, 2010, 07:27 AM EST

  Furthermore, I would reiterate my view that the ambiguity that has been caused by the different "spin" comments has actually been more harmful to the stated continuance of teaching in this regard. I make the point again, the impression created is that the left hand is ignorant of what the right hand is doing - perception being everything in this case.

• barneyjo | Nov 24, 2010, 07:24 AM EST

  Indeed. However he has said that "using a condom could be a first step in the direction of a moralisation" (your quotes) that alone to me is certainly an advocacy of the use of condoms to a given end; in this case a state of "moralisation" - surely the law of cause and effect at work!!

• Carroll09 | Nov 24, 2010, 05:09 AM EST

  Barneyjo - just a point of information which the above article doesn't mention: the Pope actually reiterates in his interview/book the claims he made at the start of his trip to Africa last year. He says he stands by the claim he made. So, there actually is no "turn-around" on that score. His overall message, having read his comments in full several times now, is clearly that condoms are not the way to solve the problem of AIDS and they are certainly not a moral solution - i.e. it is not a contradiction of what he said before, nor is it a contradiction of the Church's teaching on the matter.

• Carroll09 | Nov 24, 2010, 04:58 AM EST

  Hollabackgurl - Pope Benedict said that using a condom could be "a first step in the direction of a moralisation". He is not talking about the morality of using a condom, but the possible thinking behind a person's (a male prostitute, to use his specific example) decision to use a condom. He is not saying that using the condom is morally justifiable, but that it could represent a change in their moral conscience given their concern that they do not pass on the infection. But, he clearly doesn't see this as an end in itself - "this is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection". The desire not to pass on the infection might signal the awakening of a moral conscience, but that doesn't mean that the means used to avoid passing on the infection are themselves morally justifiable. There is a big difference there. Also, regarding your last sentence ("The Pope is implicitly saying..."), I repeat that his book carries no doctrinal or canonical weight - it is not an official Church document, and unless and until such a document is published, the teaching of the Church has not changed at all.

• barneyjo | Nov 24, 2010, 03:32 AM EST

  At very least, there does seem to be a certain degree of ambiguity in the comments(reported or actual) coming from the Holy Father and other senior vatican spokesmen. What I am less certain about is whether or not this ambiguity could be construed as "creative" on the part of at least some of those commentators. Taken at face value, there is clearly a change of emphasis in the comments allegedly made by the Holy Father in the new book, when set against the views he articulated in Africa some months before. I also note with interest the almost "indecent" haste of other vatican spokesmen to contextualise these views, without, it seems to me, them being clear of the actual true context in which they were made. Whether true, acccurate comments or not, an impression now exists that Benedict has gone off on a "solo run" on this issue; that he is "off message" and by definition, within the Vatican, "the left hand doesnt know what the right hand is doing"

• hollabackgurl | Nov 24, 2010, 12:09 AM EST

  The Rev. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican’s spokesman, said that for Benedict, the use of condoms by people infected with H.I.V. could be the first step of responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk to the life of the person with whom there are relations. Whether it’s a man or woman or a transsexual,” he added. The pope is implicitly saying that you cannot anymore raise the objection that any use of the condom is an intrinsic evil.

• jamieLM | Nov 23, 2010, 06:35 PM EST

  As an RN, I've seen my share of people who were HIV positive or had full-blown AIDS. Condoms aren't 100% perfect 100% of the time, but they're the best we have for those who are playing "sex roulette." If you have unprotected sex and become infected, it's YOUR health and life that's on the line, no matter what anyone else said about condom use. I wouldn't risk my life when condoms are available.

• Carroll09 | Nov 23, 2010, 06:33 PM EST

  Hollabackgurl- it has not changed the discussion: enlivened it perhaps, but there are always two sides in a discussion...which, incidentally, some who are focusing on the Pope's remarks could do with remembering, because while many would like to just give out billions of condoms, there is still the underlying problem that condoms simply are not solving. The fact is that no institution provides as much care for AIDS sufferers as the Catholic Church - the Church, despite what some would like to think is not standing idly by on this issue, but is taking a more proactive role than any other institution on the planet. As I said before, the Church's position has not changed. The Pope has not contradicted the Church's position - in fact he has reinforced the Church's teaching that condoms are not a morally permissable solution to the AIDS problem.

• hollabackgurl | Nov 23, 2010, 04:30 PM EST

  By acknowledging that condoms help prevent the spread of HIV between people in sexual relationships, the pope has completely changed the Catholic discussion on condoms.

• Carroll09 | Nov 23, 2010, 05:17 AM EST

  Hollabackgurl- you need to look up the proper definition of Papal Infallibility. The Pope and the bishops in union with him teach infallibly when they definitively proclaim some doctrine of faith and morals (Lumen Gentium from Vatican II gave a clear and fuller definition of it). Infallibility does NOT mean impeccability. Furthermore, infallibility prevents the Pope from teaching error in matters of faith and morals- it does not force him to teach the truth. In other words, infallibility only works if the Pope has "done his homework". The Pope says in his new book that "It goes without saying that the Pope can have PRIVATE opinions that are wrong" - in fact, in the first volume of his book "Jesus of Nazareth" (his first book written as Pope Benedict XVI) he says: "It goes without saying that this book is in no way an exercise of the magisterium, but is solely an expression of my personal search 'for the face of the Lord'. Everyone is free, then, to contradict me. I would only ask my readers for that initial goodwill without which there can be no understanding". Interesting how the media were not claiming then that the Church had issued a new teaching on Jesus or that the Pope's book was an infallible statement...The current book and statements, as misrepresented by Mr O'Doherty and others, does not, as I said earlier, carry any canonical or dogmatic weight, it does not mark a change in the Church's teaching, and it is clear (if one cares to read the ENTIRE response) that the Pope is actually supporting and reinforcing the Church's teaching on the matter.

• plasticpaddy | Nov 22, 2010, 10:41 PM EST

  also hollabackgurl the pope is only infallible when he declares himself to be speaking infallibly. I may not be catholic anymore but I remember the Catholic education I received.

• plasticpaddy | Nov 22, 2010, 10:40 PM EST

  @ kilowen "gay sex leads nowhere - its very basic." except to fun for gay people

• plasticpaddy | Nov 22, 2010, 10:39 PM EST

  Ahh JohnTobin, grow up.

• Kilbarry1 | Nov 22, 2010, 04:22 PM EST

  In the early 1990s there was a report on deaths from AIDS in all EU countries. Ireland had the second lowest number of deaths and France had the highest. I wrote to the World Health Organisation at the time and asked them if they could send me statistics on the number of condoms sold in various countries so that I could compare them with the AIDS statistics i.e. did the countries with the highest usage of condoms have the lowest incidence of AIDS? They told me they did not have those statistics. ............ I also phoned the Department of Health in Dublin and asked them if the EU had published any reports on WHY certain countries (like Ireland) had lower death rates than others. The gentleman I spoke to said that he knew of no such reports. When I asked him why they didn't exist, he suggested it was because they might embarrase countries with high death rates!! ...... Well that was a long time ago. Does the WHO have the statistics now? Has the EU published such reports? And if so, do they support the idea that condoms are the solution to the AIDS epidemic?

• JOHNTOBIN | Nov 22, 2010, 03:54 PM EST

  Another typical attack on the Catholic Church by Irish Central.

• hollabackgurl | Nov 22, 2010, 01:51 PM EST

  2BeorNot2be has never heard of the female condom, or the diaphragm, and that doesn't surprise me. Usually the people with the biggest hangups about sex and sexuality tend to also be the most ignorant about its permutations. If something about the human body disgusts you, you should complain to the manufacturer. Killowen to the head of the line.

• killowen | Nov 22, 2010, 01:15 PM EST

  gay sex leads nowhere - its very basic.

• 2BorNot2B | Nov 22, 2010, 01:12 PM EST

  This article is misleading (Benedict changed his mind???) and ill-conceived (no pun intended)from its inception. Mr/Ms O'Doherty if he/she were writing from a purely journalistic, rather than from his usual emotional perch when it comes to the issue dealing with sex and gayness, would have noticed the double entendre even the tortured syntax of his title engenders: He/she starts with "Gay sex workers can use condoms, women can't." ---- Yah, that is quite true.. he might have noticed women might have a bit of trouble slipping them on!

• hollabackgurl | Nov 22, 2010, 11:59 AM EST

  Bendicts remark comes from a sitting Pope, who we are told is infallible, so there is a certain weight attached to his observation. Now there is a glaring disparity between the opportunity for a man to protect himself from HIV transmission and for a woman to do the same, in Benedict's thinking. Apparently the potential to concieve overrules any threat to a woman's health. And that's precisely the kind of medievilist mind set that allows the Church (eternal though she may be) to become her own worst enemy in the 21 century.

• SingleDonald | Nov 22, 2010, 11:58 AM EST

  A small clarification-I was not sexually active, as a teenager. I merely came to the conclusion that not to accept the Church's stance on sexual matters should not subject one to "mortal sins"!

• SingleDonald | Nov 22, 2010, 11:52 AM EST

  Very enlightening, Carroll09; good response, hollabackgurl. I agree that the Church's harsh, unrealistic & reactionary views on human sexuality are long overdue for an overhaul. Let's start with abandoning a literal interpretation of Matthew: 5-28, that anyone who so much as look at a woman with lust has already committed "adultery" against her, in his heart. As previously expressed, I would challenge Jesus Himself, on this literal interpretation. If He insisted that sexual fantasies were indeed "damnable offenses", I would tell him (note the lower case pronoun) that he was NOT my "Lord & Savior", merely an ego maniacal control freak, and walk away from him. I wouldn't consider him to have the power to send me to Hell, over a non transgression like this, and would feel that some other Force in the Universe could see to my well being, in the Afterlife. Where the Church is concerned, it is high time it recognized the value of sex BEYOND procreation. The love/healthy attraction between men & women is a beautiful thing, even when a new life is not conceived. The Catholic Church should get with the modern world, and only condemn abuses of sexual activity! I was right as a teenager, in holding these views. Fortunately, I did not "grow up" to think otherwise, as the Church would have preferred I do!

• Searlit | Nov 22, 2010, 11:52 AM EST

  Good article, Cahir.

• Carroll09 | Nov 22, 2010, 11:13 AM EST

  No, Hollabackgurl - it doesn't make it depressing. What is more depressing is a media which is either incapable or not interested in quoting what Pope Benedict actually did say. If the Church has changed its stance, as some in the media are claiming, then perhaps they can prove it by citing an official Church document. As I illustrated, the Pope's comments actually do not contradict what the Church has been teaching up to this point.

• hollabackgurl | Nov 22, 2010, 10:49 AM EST

  Carroll09, your point that it's merely the Pope's private opinion and carries no dgmatic or canonical force is something that actually makes Benedicts remark even more depressing. That fundamentalist insistence is quite correct, but it is also life denying and reality denying. Condoms really DO protect you from HIV tranmission - and it's absurd to suggest (by inference) that all sex for anything other than procreation is selfishness. You can look at life throught the wrong end of a telescope, but Jesus didn't and neither will I.

• Carroll09 | Nov 22, 2010, 10:29 AM EST

  It is important to bear in mind a fact that the media generally & and Mr O'Doherty have ignored, and that is that this book is the result of an interview - it is not a Church document, the Pope was not engaging in any teaching capacity, the book is not published by the Church. The book is not an act of the Church's Magisterium and thus cannot change the Church's official stance on the matter. It does not carry ANY dogmatic or canonical force - it merely shows the Pope's personal opinion on a matter. So the Church has decided NOTHING - its teaching is the same as it has always been. The Pope himself notes in the book that "It goes without saying that the Pope can have private opinions that are wrong". In addition, he REPEATED what he said about the AIDS last year, and in the current book (immediately following what he said about male prostitutes) he says that "[condoms are] not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection". He was not saying that it is morally right to use condoms, but that in the case of a male prostitute using a condom may indicate the awakening of a moral sense - i.e. the intention of reducing the risk of infection. Overall, in fact, the Pope is saying that condoms will NOT solve the problem of AIDS - he says: 1) people can already get condoms and the problem has still not been solved, 2) the "secular" ABC programme already recognises that condoms are not the unique solution to AIDS, 3) the fixation on condom use represents a banalisation of sexuality that turns the act from being one of love to one of selfishness. So, unlike what many in the media have tried to tell us, the Pope's comments in no way give a license for condom use - condom use is not a moral solution to the problem, but the INTENT of (for example) a male prostitute who uses one may be a step in the right direction.

• mayoman | Nov 22, 2010, 09:35 AM EST

  For some one as conservative as Pope Benedict is, its surprising and heartening to learn that he would even acknowledge the health risks to gay prostitutes who use no protection. Perhaps this realistic shift in viewpoint should be seen as a small enlightened step forward that could possibly lead someday to a greater Papal understanding and approval of condom use for everyone.

• thomas409 | Nov 22, 2010, 09:25 AM EST

  a beginning, Good luck