What the pope didn't say about condoms

The Pope is continuing to do a terrible job of dealing with the scandal of the child rape coverup. Of course he did a worse job while he was second in command, so there might be some progress.

A moral organization, and the Roman Catholic Church is quite self-congratulatory about how moral it is (see parable of Widow's Mite), would have fired every single manager who had participated in the coverup of these rapes and turned over all their documents about the criminal coverup to authorities, along with any managers, like Cardinal Law, who have been hiding away in a place from which they cannot be extradicted.

Right now, the Pope is doing nothing but PR to protect the organization. He is not reforming the Church. He is not showing compassion for the victims.

“Cassandra and the Boy Who Cried Wolf had different moral characters”

The boy was a known liar. Cassandra was assumed to be insane (cursed by Apollo with both the gift of prophecy AND the stigma of not being believed). One had given ample reason to be disbelieved through repeated lies, the other was just dismissed, magically, as a babbling idiot.
Which of these two is more like the Church’s current situation?
My money’s on the first, the boy who lied, lied, lied then eventually spoke the truth.
Trust can only be earned. Trust can only be maintained as long as truth reigns. Once that trust has been violated it cannot be instantly re-attained, it must be re-earned from the ground up. It is most often simpler to initially earn trust than to try to rebuild it after a flagrant deception.
The scandal is the fault of the Church, completely. The Church violated a sacred trust, repeatedly. It allowed, or at least tolerated the most heinous abuse of its own innocent children for a long period of time. The Church lied, covered up the lies, then lied about the cover up.
If your own child was abused at a certain daycare, what would it take for that daycare to regain your trust? Would a solemn, lamenting, apology from the owner suffice? Would you recommend the daycare to others? Ever?

“If you don't believe that every soul is in need of healing”
One thing has nothing to do with the other, the Church violated its most sacred trust, the bodies and souls of innocent children. The Church has broken this trust; it has lost its moral authority. This sort of violation does not heal overnight.
So you blame the current 'rancor' on those that do not trust the Church instead of the Church itself?
Would you also blame a wife for her lack of faith in her adulterous husband?

It's hard to treat well so many complex subjects in a 700-word column. This article is about leaked portions of a book, which were not limited to the condom comments. (Perhaps a real conversation about the book, when it is released, will be possible.) The brouhaha, though, was about condoms. I admit it is a fine point to distinguish, especially for those not familiar through and through with the reasoning and nuances of Catholic theology; but the pope did not approve condom use, per se--he approved the impulse that might lead someone to it, sort of like sparing the hostages in a robbery instead of shooting them randomly.

Interesting to me is the rancor that people exhibit in protesting the Church's characterization of the scandal. It's not about a trivial concept of "reputation" that the Church mourns, but the loss of the trustworthiness necessary in order to communicate a lifesaving truth. Cassandra and the Boy Who Cried Wolf had different moral characters, but the tragedy is that neither was believed when they spoke truth, with dire consequences. You may say that the Boy Who Cried Wolf got what he deserved, but didn't you ever read about the Trojan War and say, "Why won't anyone believe her? They could have all been saved!" The pope laments both the abuse and the scandal that cuts off healing. If you don't believe that every soul is in need of healing, then this will make no sense to you.

Frankly, this was not a good article. The title implied that the author would discuss what the Pope said and did not say about condoms. The author does that too briefly, and then veers off into praising the Pope for his frank treatment of the child abuse scandals. The Catholic Church's treatment of condoms is equally deserving of frank talk. Their unwillingness or inability to discuss it does as much harm as anything the Church has ever done.

And about the sex abuse scandals - the talk is not frank enough and it is far too late. I wouldn't normally have brought it up, but the author seemed to think it was relevant.

and another thing -
How can our nation continue to allow an organization like the Catholic church to continue to foist pedophile priests off on the public.
Why haven't these violators of our young people, and their enablers, been punished under our legal system?

Honestly, who really cares what this old celibate man, who passes himself off as godlike, thinks about the sexual practices of normal people.

The pope on condums is as much an authority as, say, Sarah Palin opining on good govenance.

Yes, he did approve the use of condoms in that circumstance. That's a fair statement. He said they aren't what he prefers, but they are better than nothing. In other words, he recognized that people are going to do what they want instead of listening to his every word.

Which is what everyone should be doing. Just do what you think is right, not what some old celibate in an ancient building in Rome thinks is right.

Ratzinger should also dictate his known pedophile priests learn how to use condoms as well. Why do Americans, especially Catholics, continue to look the other way at these atrocities? Why do we give special dispensation to Catholic perverts while we throw other perverts in prison for a long time.

Are Americans so afraid of the Catholic Church and its dictatorial hierarchy that we continue to let them get away with this? No more Catholic DA's.

Hundreds of thousands of words will be written about the Pope's comment on the permissible use of condoms by prostitutes, and to what practical end? Will a prostitute now feel morally more secure in in knowing that use of comndoms is now permissible. Ultimately the issue is
one of indivdidual conscience versus hierarchical control which is known as clericalism. The Catholic hierarchy with its Teaching Magestirium has all of the answers so that there is no room for individual conscience or independent theological speculation. Regretably, the Church is burdened since the 4th century with the Augustian concept (great and admirable though Augustune is) that sex is somehow dirty and is lesser goods. The bottom line is that no totalitarian system can ever prevail over human nature. The condom issue has driven both priests and people out of the chruch, and made others into cafeteria Catholics. Humanae Vitae , an encyclical of Puis VI, 1968, which reaffirmed the hierarchical position of birth control started a revolution which will ultimately re-form the church, but by the laity and the entire Church, and not the Vatican. I write this as a cafeteria Catholic with an informed conscience and a realtionship with the Catholic Church and the God of my understanding who will not be ex-commincated or driven out of the Church by any Pope or Bishop. I have supreme confidence in the Holy Spirit which moves with glacial speed, but inexorably always forward guiding us to our teleological destiny.

What the Pope didn't say about condoms?

He's just a bit shy and modest, you know?

Doesn't want everyone to know how expert in sex, erotism, Kamasutrea, and all matters concerning sexual activity. This guy is the best kick in the hood.

"It was really almost like the crater of a volcano, out of which suddenly a tremendous cloud of filth came. . . ."

Was it so sudden? Wasn't a cardinal from Boston forced, in 2002, to flee to Rome because of sexual scandals in the Boston area?

Was he the first church official to be linked to such scandals, either as perpetrating them or covering them up, or both?

Wasn't knowledge of sexual improprieties taken by members of the Catholic hierarchy already widespread enough in 2001 that it caught the Pope's attention? Didn't Pope John Paul II declare that "a sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue by a cleric with a minor under 18 years of age is to be considered a grave sin, or delictum gravius"? And wasn't Pope Rat formerly the "Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith"?

If Pope John Paul II knew about it, why didn't Pope Rat?

Pope Rat, while still an archbishop in Germany (meaning prior to 1982), is rumored to have helped cover up 'priestly indiscretions of a sexual manner'?

And people still believe in him?

BTW and if you can't tell, I am NOT a fan of the current Pope, Pope RAT.

Very good article. I am very relieved to hear the plain talk, as you put it. He is not making excuses. He is not blaming the media. He is pretty up front about it. And I believe he is trying to change things and to heal the children and the church.
I also believe that the children being turned away from the faith because of the abuse is a definite problem for the children and part of what needs healing. I know victims who cannot step foot in a church and they want to! They are suffering so. I am an incest survivor myself. Let us pray for them.

" abuses him instead and leads him away from the Lord. As a result the faith as such becomes unbelievable, and the Church can no longer present herself credibly as the herald of the Lord."

Uh, THAT's the worry? That the church and its priests suffer a bad reputation and the children that were abused may lose faith in the church because of it? THAT's the problem with the scandal?
The problem is the abuse itself and the 'victims' are the abused children themselves. What these children might think of the church after the fact is trivial/meaningless compared to the damage/harm that has been inflicted upon them.
The institutional behavior of the Church created the 'scandal' through official cover-ups, denials and fighting and discrediting the accusers/victims every step of the way.
The Church has a long, long way to go before it can be absolved of the heinous crimes committed in its name. Much like a convicted felon, the stigma of a past evil may never completely go away. But that is not the fault of the media, it is entirely the fault of those that participated in the abuse and those officials involved in the subsequent cover-ups.