Apparently “Pope Benedict has asked senior theologians and scientists to prepare a document discussing the use of condoms as a means of preventing the transmission of HIV”.
I have to admit to expecting this Pope to be even more conservative than the last on this issue and to being pleasantly surprised by this news. Of course, the real test will be what the study says and what the Pope decides to do in response. Regardless, it seems like a move in the right direction and that can only be a good thing.
This has been in the works for a bit.
There’s an interesting piece here in The Times about the comments of Cardinal Martini (seen as Benedict’s liberal opponent in the conclave) who made some remarks recently describing condoms as a “lesser evil” compared to AIDS. Whether he’s trying to push the Pope’s commission in a certain direction or not, he no doubt knew it was coming. Last year, the President of the Spanish hierarchy made similar comments.
Speculation in the Roman press is that the Pope will relax the prohibition.
It may or may not happen, but if it does, the symbolism will indeed be good.
And it’ll be interesting to see how certain Catholic bloggers react.
So… the Pope’s arch-enemy is a certain Cardinal Martini, you say?
I wonder what his teaching is on the ver(mouth)-gin birth!
Cardinal Martini. Surely someone else can do something better with this… [Just no shaken/stirred entries... that's too durn easy...]
Interesting that the Vatican refused to comment when Martini’s remarks were reported:
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2006/04/one-cardinals-lesser-evil-is-anothers.html
Well, I’ll ignore the jokes, j_p_z, unless you can come up with a better one
You can read the text of the interview with Martini here:
http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=51790&eng=y
It’s worth a look. It’s a philosophically reflective and interesting discussion from within the Catholic ethos, which also points to some areas where that ethos could be stretched beyond its present limits.
The other point I wanted to make is that since B16 has reiterated the current teaching before, having another look at it surely implies the possibility of change. Otherwise, he could just come out and say – “the Church has always taught”…
Cardinal Martini has grand new ideas for an alternative Mass. He wants to call it the ‘Happy Hour.’
And of course, he *is* highly placed in the hierarchy. He is one of the Seven Cardinal Cocktails…
Sorry, Kim, it’s just that there’s another raging, incoherent, poorly-debated Islam scuffle going on in another thread, and so far I’ve managed to stay out of it. Must… find something… to do… with my hands…
Actually, though, in seriousness, this condom re-appraisal is six different shades of good news. Frankly I’m astonished they couldn’t come to this conclusion earlier; as I understood it, the Church’s teaching against contraception doesn’t involve some inherent ontological evil about having a bit of latex on yr weenie; I thought it was more to do with a holistic view of humanity, and sex’s relation therein. So I would think that there’s room for more options w/r/t a mere piece of technology… (b/t/w, what would St. Aquinas say about this ‘lesser evil’ business? I thought he war agin it…)
Kim: “…it also points to some areas where that ethos could be stretched beyond its present limits…”
Interesting. Don’t have time to read the link now, but I’ll have to come back to it. I’ve never actually waded through ‘Humanae Vitae’ literally, but my understanding of it was the Church’s objections were based partly on the idea that the ready availability of mechanical contraception would pollute the nature of the sexual relationship by divorcing it from its physical and spiritual realities, and thus make it too easy for people to exploit one another for sex. Which would mean, in a way, that it’s an argument founded on human dignity. But since efforts at disease prevention could be seen as a species of human dignity as well, it seems like there’s room for pro-condom arguments. It would depend, I guess, on the ’spirit’ in which the act is undertaken, right?
Well, that’s just thinking out loud, though. Later on, I’ll have to read the actual interview… over a nice, dry… riesling. See, I skipped it.
I haven’t been reading it, j_p_z. I’m a bit over incoherent stoushes about Islam.
Be more fun to have a stoush about Catholicism!
Seriously, though, dunno about Aquinas, but a more positive view of sex does come across in Deus est Caritas than what we got during the JP2 era. Like I said, this has been in the works for a while, I think. JP2 was holding back the floodgates.
I’ve done a quick hunt around the Catholic blogosphere (yes, folks, it’s huge).
Gerard Augustinus translates a report from Der Spiegel and notes that the Cardinal who made the announcement is a close confidante of Benedict.
Amy Welborn at Open Book thinks there’s no indication which way the report will go, but I tend to agree with Cristy and Kim that the mere fact of the request probably indicates some rethinking.
Kudos to Amy as well for working the fabulous word “condomnation” into the title of her post.
Thanks, Mark.
j_p_z, I think the discussion is being limited to the use of condoms by married couples when one partner has AIDS (quite common in Africa). So that’s consistent with the thrust of Humanae Vitae.
But the symbolism would still be good.
The Cardinal who is organising the study, Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, President of the Pontifical Council for Pastoral Health, is a confidant of Benedict’s. So it’s interesting to observe, as John Allen notes in the National Catholic Reporter, that he’s among the senior church figures who’ve previously called for a relaxation of the ban: