Media Lies About the Pope

Well done. Good ripping apart of this latest propaganda from the MSM.

Damien Thompson has been a disgrace on this issue. How can he deduce from this that the pope is allowing discordant couples to use condoms and put the uninfected partner in danger of infection? If the Vatican are going to move on this surely they say it though more official means than an informal interview.

1) Wynne Jones is clearly not very intelligent. Just look at his picture.
2) The Pope is wrong to give an interview. He must know (and if he doesn’t than someone must forcefully tell him) that the musings of a theologian and a cardinal are one thing, while the thoughts, however tentative, of a Pope will be given a weight (and a spin) they often will not have deserved.
So it is in this case. I am afraid that our beloved Holy Father is too much in love with his own thought processes.

The whole thing makes me mad, and the more complicated fellow bloggers’ (not yours) explanations get, the more I wish everyone would shut up. Ordinary Catholics are freaking out all over the place and complicated forays into moral theology by amateurs is not helping.

L’Ossevatore Romano is greatly to blame for breaking the embargo, and I hope heads roll.

I am most disappointed with the article in THE TELEGRAPH today where Cristina Odone writes a frivolous piece which does not quote one word of the Holy Father but which mentions aplenty “risotto rugola and Gavi di Gavi”.
First, this news item does not represent any authoritative change of teaching; it could not possibly do so. How does one know? Because popes set out such teaching in carefully worded encyclicals or other documents clearly conveying their status. This is a newspaper account of what a book is going to say, the book quoting an interview with the pope which has no authority. It is ironic, that those who have defied the clearly expressed teaching of the MAGISTERIUM, are now treating as “infallible” this half-baked story.

Next, the pope mentions only a case where condoms could not possibly be used as a contraceptive – homosexual intercourse. It may be news to some people, but two homosexuals having sexual relations cannot get pregnant thereby. So NONE OF THE CHURCH TEACHING OF CONTRACEPTION APPLIES. For homosexuals, the wrong is in the sexual act ( which the Catholic Church says is crying out to heaven for vengeance); whether they use a condom or not is irrelevant morally. It is like saying that it is not wrong for two lesbians to use the contraceptive pill for the same reason.

One final point: speaking as a married man, I cannot believe that any man who has AIDS and who loves a woman would have sexual relations with that woman, with or without a tiny piece of unreliable rubber.

Pope John Paul II gave a similar series of interviews at Castel Gandolfo which were published in book form (Crossing the Threshold of Hope), so it is nothing novel for Benedict to do so. And I simply see nothing at all to justify the claim that he is ‘in love with his own thought processes’. Nothing in his writing, his disposition, his general demeanour, or any other evidence that I have ever seen speak to any shred of pride existing in that saintly and sagacious man. It is not his fault that others will distort his words and take them egregiously out of context. Why should the Shepherd of the Church be intimidated into silence by mendacious media? Why should he not be able to give an interview, if for nothing else, then to speak to the flock that he guides, as is his mandate from Christ?

I agree; it is simply that the Holy Father is too good-natured and too professorial to realise these hypothetical speculations will always be blown out of proportion and lied about by his enemies.

I basically agree with you too, Andrew. I think your piece is brilliant. My comment was directed at another comment; I’m sorry I did not make that clear.

MWK: I do not accuse Pope Benedict of pride, but of infatuation. He likes to spin thoughts, and does it very well. Only: that is not the pope’s job. A book of papal musings, be they those of a Pius X, is not the same thing as an encyclical; it is not, therefore, an example of the Pope guiding his flock. To use such a vehicle to speak of prostitutes and their intentions is perhaps the best example I have ever read of something which is “offensive to pious ears”. By that phrase the Church wishes to say that the simple should be left in peace. There can be no objection to what Benedict says in itself, but quite a lot to his apparent desire to say it to the whole world.
Look around you. Read the press, both Catholic and lay. Can you seriously say that the world’s understanding of Catholic teaching on this matter is now clearer than it was a week ago? I very much fear that confusion has been sown, and doubt will now spring up, and forcefully.

Dear BvH,

I don’t think your characterisation of the book as a collection of ‘musings’ is entirely accurate. I have read part of Crossing the Threshold of Hope, and it is a very serious engagement with deep theological matters (e.g., comparative theology), informed by Church teaching, not mere ‘musings’. The parts that I read deal in a very systematic way with what the Church does and does not believe and why. I don’t see how it cannot, then, serve as a guide for the faithful, though of course the audience need not be limited to Catholics. Surely, an encyclical or some such formal written document is not the only manner in which the Holy Father guides the Church. But JPII was not simply offering his personal opinions for the sake of speculation. (Indeed, once one becomes Pope I’m not sure that one can even be said to speak outwith one’s authority as Pope, but I’m not sure about the theology on this. I note this because JPII drove his advisors mad because at times he spoke extemporaneously, which could have dangerous consequences if he made a mistake. Anyway, I’m not sure about this, but I recall a solid priest mentioning this in a Theology lecture.) However, since I suspect neither of us have read the whole text we should withhold serious judgement at the moment.

No of course the world’s understanding is not any clearer. But I did not argue that, and I think it is beside the point.

I think we agree that this issue was not prudent to address in such a way, or that it could have been handled much better at least. I don’t know if the Pope should not give interviews, full stop. But you have a good point with which I agree. It has caused much confusion amongst Catholics and non-Catholics. To whom to attribute blame, and for what, is a more complicated matter.

I am an admirer of Benedict in many ways, but unfortunately it seems like PR is not his speciality, to say the least. This should not be a harsh criticism, however. There is no requirement for a Pope to be media savvy. But I must admit that I am rather perplexed about this entire matter, and would really like to see the whole text and learn the full story. I’m sure that these questions were vetted in advance of the interviews, so I’m surprised that something like that would be asked. I think time will tell more of the tale.