Hang with me for a moment.
I went hunting this past weekend. In order to be safe from being mistaken for an animal, the prey, hunters are encouraged or even required to wear a bright orange color. This wise safety measure, of course, assumes that all the other hunters in the woods are not color blind.
Now if you know in advance that all the other hunters are color blind, you have no one else to blame but your self when you end up shot.
Translation? You don’t speak French to a bunch of neanderthals and expect NOT to be clubbed.
This is what happened to the Vatican press machine this past weekend with the “Pope approves condoms” story. Actually, this is what always happens to the Vatican press machine.
Let’s face it. The press getting this story wrong is the expected outcome but yet again the Vatican press office was caught flat footed. Yes, they issued a statement that, while correct, is written in the same language of nuance that got them in trouble in the first place.
I must admit that the whole thing has me scratching my head. The question I keep coming back to is “why?” Why did the Pope try to make this VERY nuanced point when it is obvious to even the most casual observer that the media would get this wrong? Did this nuanced point about male prostitutes really have to be made? I mean, have male prostitutes sworn off condoms because the Pope says they are wrong? Why? Why this point?
I cannot help but wonder if the Pope’s inner egg-head got the better of him here. In a way, I feel like the Pope wandered into the woods on the first day of hunting season while trying to make a point detailing the different kinds of rods and cones involved in color-blindness. It is just not the time or place to be making this point.
And then the Holy See press office. Somebody over there coulda shoulda known what was contained in this interview and anticipated the blowup. The whole reason you have a press office is so that you can be ahead of these kind of stories rather than being reactive. Extending my lame hunting analogy, it seems that the press office tells all of the color blind hunters “Hey, I think I saw something move over there!” And then claims “How was I supposed to know?”
Doesn’t anybody over at the Vatican, from the Pope on down, know how this works?
Listen up!!! The press doesn’t do nuance!
When will they get this through their pointy hats?
November 22, 2010 at 5:58 am
This comment has been removed by the author.
November 22, 2010 at 6:08 am
Well, the Universal Church doesn't do nuance well either, especially if the Pope calls it the "first step" of some kind of moral awakening.
I am bemused at the way you spin this as if the Pope's "inner egg head" led to this mess, as if he is so SMART that he's led the sheep into mass confusion. I guess we just pray for a much stupider Pope then? Some simpleton who just tells us not to use condoms or sodomize each other or we'll go to hell? Lord, give us some poor booby who is incapable of 300 page opaque phenomenological tomes of vague status that deliver who-knows-what with the latest European zeitgeist. Lord knows that kind of crap has done such wonders for the Church in the past 30 years, but a little less "nuance" please.
November 22, 2010 at 6:39 am
I have a lot of sympathy with the Pope, here.
One of the biggest things my folks taught me is when to tell the truth, even though it will cause trouble, and when to hold my tongue even though someone will take it wrongly.
Anything can be taken as totally out of context as this. I do sort of wish he'd chosen something a bit less exploitable, but oh well.
November 22, 2010 at 6:46 am
Patrick, Jesus caused a lot of consternation by speaking to and dining with tax collectors and prostitutes. He, of course, cared about saving them, not about how His enemies were going to spin His efforts (let alone how much eye-rolling was going on among His friends).
Today, just *mentioning* the possibility that a male prostitute might develop enough of a conscience not to want to risk killing the people he's being paid to sodomize–though, as the pope further points out, that faint beginning of morality is ultimately a step in the wrong direction, not the right one–is enough to send the media into a tizzy (let alone faithful Catholics who ought to be an audience for nuance, if there ever was one).
But I suppose as long as the pope isn't trying to save tax collectors, too, we should let the eye-rolling festivities continue unabated…
November 22, 2010 at 6:48 am
Red-
it's worth noting that the Pope's WORDS are what are being considered, and a small portion of them at that, rather than his actions. Actions vs words are a big deal.
November 22, 2010 at 6:53 am
I don't have a degree in theology, but I read the full answer by the pope and I think that he is perfectly clear…and seems to be teaching what the church has always taught in his matter.
The problem was that L'Osservatore Romano didn't show the full quote. Within hours, the rest of the quote was revealed in numerous places, causing many periodicals to adjust their original reports (NYT and Telegraph etc.)
I think that everyone really needs to calm down about this…and trust Benedict. He is worthy of our trust.
I am looking forward to reading the book in it's entirety!
November 22, 2010 at 6:57 am
Sorry to respond so many times in a short time… the power of snark compels me.
The problem was that L'Osservatore Romano
Bingo.
I'm really, really tired of having to deal with L'ORo doing something stupid and it being presented to me as the Pope's unopposable statement. (Simpson. Nuff said.)
November 22, 2010 at 7:33 am
The Pope didn't make a single misstep. Had L'ORo kept their idiot mouths shut and let the publishers go right ahead with their carefully laid plans, things would have sailed.
But no, they had to go from being a respected Vatican trumpet to "relevant", "modern" useful IDIOTS.
Someone needs to go in there and fire them. Fire their incompetent Italian arses, and replace them with an American or two – the Lord Himself said we need to be as shrewd as serpents, and nobody does that like Americans.
November 22, 2010 at 8:39 am
Here's a disturbing thought: what if the "Vatican Press" desired this exact outcome? Does it strike anyone else as sketchy that *this* one particular section of a **book long** interview was "leaked" to the rabid secular press. The same secular press that has been fanning the flames of hatred against Catholics for decades?
Things that make you go hmmmmmmm…
November 22, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Papa Benedict made no error here at all. Pray for his protection as the spirit of this age despises him and the Church over which he is the earthly head.
Let us also pray that those within the ranks of the Vatican Press who are not obedient to the Spirit of God be removed…and replaced by those who ARE.
KM
November 22, 2010 at 1:13 pm
I'll second Michelle's sentiment. Patrick, you talk as if the Holy Father has great support among his charges at the Vatican. Clearly he could benefit from a little bit more of the political paranoia of his predecessor.
November 22, 2010 at 2:48 pm
The Pope spoke clearly in this long interview, where he took many breaks for prayer before he answered some questions.
Catholics should not be afraid to deal with the aftermath of this opinion of the Holy Father. It offers opportunity to speak further on individual "moralizing". If Catholics want to be smart about it, they could capture the secular world and speak out about the evolving moral character of individuals. Catholics should speak louder about the "moralizing" phrase than the "pope said male prostitute can use condoms" phrase.
I read his comment as hopeful. Hope that persons who are knowingly engaging in behavior may be fatal could, by using condoms, prolong their own life and the life of others whereby they will both have a greater chance at drawing closer to God and further from the sinful lifestyle they are engaged in. Dead people can't become more moral. Living sinners can sin less and less over time.
November 22, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Pope: You have to stop this sinful way of life.
Buck (male whore): I won't.
Pope: But you have AIDS. You'll infect others.
Buck: The chance they take.
Pope: Can you at least wear a condom?
November 22, 2010 at 3:10 pm
The Church has been constantly misrepresented and have had its teachings distorted by people who want to justify their own ideology. It isn't new with this book. Look at how the Pope's brilliant "Caritas in veritate" was distorted by people who were reading it with the intent of finding material to justify their own views. For that matter we could point to St. Pius X and his "Lamentabili sane" which certain Modernists distorted to justify themselves, or certain southern Catholics in the civil war denying that the Church denunciation of slavery was anything more than the denunciation of the slave trade.
Even though the Press Office handled this badly, I believe the problem was bad will on the part of the media and dissenters and not obscure language on the part of the Pope.
November 22, 2010 at 3:34 pm
It is time we stop worrying about the press and what "they" might say. The secular press will always be the enemy of truth in matters of religion, either throught maliciousness or ignorance. But the Pope cannot, and the Church, cannot let them be the censors of what is said and proclaimed. Do not many bishops, for instance, decide on matters of discipline based,not on what is right, but based on what "the press" may or may not say? Enough already.
November 22, 2010 at 3:58 pm
I was going to add something insightful, but everything has already been said. Just a pithy rephrase then: The Church's role is not to look good in the eyes of the world, but in the eyes of God, and therefore, to speak the truth always.
November 22, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Folks
Speaking the truth is all fine and dandy. Wouldn't have it any other way.
Always having to issue a clarifying press release 24 hours later, not so fine and dandy.
Speaking so as not to be misunderstood has its merits too folks. Gotta know your audience.
November 22, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Rick, I don't think the pope ever said something similar to "Can you at least wear a condom?" I think that would be sinful – it's implicitly advocating the sinful act in which the condom is used. Instead he said that someone in that situation who chooses to wear a condom may be taking a small step changing their conscience if they do so for a selfless reason.
There's a subtle but very important difference between saying "If hypothetical situation X, then we may be able to infer Y" and advocating "If you're going to do X, then at least do Y" – the latter is, for example, what's wrong with sex education in most public schools.
November 22, 2010 at 4:47 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
November 22, 2010 at 5:17 pm
I think the Pope's example is analogous to those who argue for clean needle exchanges for heroin addicts. The goal isn't to keep them on heroin, rather to care for their well being as a first step to get them off their addiction. In the example of male prostitutes we are dealing with a population, already victimized. They may be victims of human trafficking or addicted to drugs themselves. While we want to prevent the spread of HIV, there is a larger goal to help these individuals.