Remember this?

….the problem cannot be overcome by the distribution of prophylactics: on the contrary, they increase it. The solution must have two elements: firstly, bringing out the human dimension of sexuality, that is to say a spiritual and human renewal that would bring with it a new way of behaving towards others, and secondly, true friendship offered above all to those who are suffering, a willingness to make sacrifices and to practise self-denial, to be alongside the suffering. And so these are the factors that help and that lead to real progress: our twofold effort to renew humanity inwardly, to give spiritual and human strength for proper conduct towards our bodies and those of others, and this capacity to suffer with those who are suffering, to remain present in situations of trial. It seems to me that this is the proper response, and the Church does this, thereby offering an enormous and important contribution. We thank all who do so.

Pope Benedict XVI in a conversation with journalists on the flight to Africa March, 2009.

Remember?

Remember how he was raked over the coals for being so ideologically blind and heartlessly cruel?

Because he said condoms make the problem of HIV worse.

So what did he say this time?

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where 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.  But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.

Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

No real difference, as far as I can see.

The arguments have raged over the past week about what the Pope really meant here.  You can engage that battle if you are not already spent – not being an expert in the theory and language of moral theology, I won’t dare to start or even enter.

And should he have even said it?  Was it prudent? Many think not – quite strongly – and believe that this kind of conversation is at the very least unwise and even inappropriate for a Pope. I don’t really have an opinion, although it seems to me that Pope Benedict is very much a “let the chips fall where they may and sort themselves out” person – presenting something and letting us determine our own relationship to what is said or done.

When I originally read that passage , I knew it would be controversial – anyone would – but I also didn’t take it as a doctrinal or prescriptive statement.  I took it as an observation about a human person’s possible interior state, something that interests Pope Benedict a great deal, something that he engages quite often – what draws us to God? What tempts us to move away?

Thinking about it today, the Flannery O’Connor story “A Good Man is Hard to Find” popped into my head. Then the rest of O’Connor’s work and then Mauriac and then Bernanos Diary of a Country Priest, which I cited in my first post on the book.

I tossed something up on Twitter about it, and got an immediate response from Tony Rossi of The Christophers, who had, as a matter of fact, reflected on the Pope’s comments in light of Wise Blood. So rather than go into it any more myself…here you go.

Pope Benedict seems to be thinking like a novelist or screenwriter here, in getting into the mind of a person who is living a life steeped in sin, but who comes to experience a gradual moral awakening. It’s a common story element in the works of authors like Flannery O’Connor or Graham Greene, and in some modern cinema.

For instance, in her novel Wise Blood, Flannery O’Connor creates the character of Hazel Motes, who rejects the Christianity of his grandfather and wants “to be converted to nothing instead of to evil.” To pursue that goal and mock the beliefs of those around him, he founds the Church Without Christ “where the blind don’t see and the lame don’t walk and what’s dead stays that way.” The irony is that, in pursuing a life that opposes the existence and teachings of Christ, he is slowly moved closer toward Him. Though Motes’ initial actions and intentions are misguided, grace is nevertheless moving his heart, mind, and will in the right direction. You could even say that he is sinning his way toward faith.

 

 

Advertisement