Pandora's Box

Pope Benedict XVI has always been a strong leader - he does not compromise Catholic beliefs or values for modern trends. In many ways, his positions are more conservative than even his predecessor's, Pope John Paul II. So why did he open a pandora's box this week? Benedict's comments on the use of condoms this week has confused pretty much everyone in the world - Catholics and non-Catholics alike. In fact, it is only a small minority of Catholics, those perhaps most "popish" to begin with, that actually understand what he meant. Like me. I am educated in faith and morals, and after reading story after story in the news, I feel confident that I understand what he was trying to say. But I disagree, in part, with what he said, and in whole with the fact that he said it. I might even go so far to call the comments irresponsible because of the confusion it causes in Catholics, non-Catholics, and pretty much everyone else.

I said "popish" Catholics would understand what the pope meant. What I mean by that are practicing Catholics who are well versed in their faith. They know the rules, they know the teachings. They can read the comment and the comments on the comment and say, "Okay, that's just a clarification of something that was already in place." For instance, a good practicing Catholic who, for a medical reason such as the having HIV, felt a need to use condoms within a married relationship to prevent spreading it to his wife would most likely go to his priest and discuss the matter. The priest would then most likely tell him that, for this case, the use of condoms was justified. And even after the pope's recent comments, most good practicing Catholics would still want to consult a priest about these things.

But the danger for Catholics who are non-practicing or have little knowledge of the church is a misunderstanding of what the church teaches about sex and contraceptives. While the pope positively reaffirmed the church's stance on contraceptives, his comments may be confusing in the effect that it appears he is justifying certain types of relationships. For instance, how can using condoms be justified for male prostitutes when prostitution itself is a sin? For people who call themselves Catholics but don't have a knowledge of church teaching, they may see the pope's comments as an open door policy. Those already practicing sex outside of marriage may see this as the "go-ahead and by the way, please use protection" announcement they were waiting for. In America at least we have a society that hears what it wants to hear, picks up on sound bites, and doesn't bother to research the issues. Even though the Vatican followed up on the pope's comments by saying it still affirms sexual relationships ONLY in marriage, the damage may have already been done.

In addition, the comments are unclear to non-Catholics. The news media, by nature, twists stories and adds bias - it's almost unavoidable. But the fact is, they have already pounced on this story and are spreading it around as though the Catholic church's entire position has changed. In comments posted on news pages I have read cynics complaining that the "infallible" pope was changing his story. While this is juse not the case, it is a very real and serious consequence of the pope's announcement, especially in a world so ready to judge the Catholic church and Christians in general.

The truth is, papal infallibility goes only so far as the pope declares it ex cathedra. This means the pope would have to say that his statement is infallible, and the statement would be much more formal than simply a comment to a reporter. Ex cathedra statements are very rare - most popes only ever issue one and many issue none. When they are issued, they become infallible doctrine in the same sense that the Apostle Peter may have issued a statement on morals. And the church believes these statements to be infallible because we do not think God would have left us with no way to interpret scriptures in light of changing times. All other guidance by the pope is just that - guidance. It guides the church, and Catholics should seriously consider his statements. But it does not mean it has been issued infallibly, nor that it cannot be changed at a later date. The pope's statements this week were most certainly not made ex cathedra, which means he could be just as prone to misjudgment as you or me, which is exactly the reason I take issue with him stating it.

Although, as I said before, his comments do not actually change any of the prior teachings of the church, people jump to conclusions and say that the church is changing its course and therefore they must have been wrong before and are wrong in other matters. That is a dangerous lie to spread.

Finally, I think that the pope's statements dangerously add to the mythical idea of "safe sex." While not condoning sex outside of marriage, the pope has said that "safe sex" is morally responsible. However, the previous stance of, "No condoms at all" was a much safer stance to take when considering the spread of deadly diseases. So many people fall into a trap of believing that just by using condoms they can avoid STD's. The church's position has been like that of a caring parent, warning children that condoms can fail and have dire consequences when they do. Indeed, between 3% (with perfect use) and 17% (with typical use) of condoms fail. The proliferation of this usage in our society is not making the world SAFER from STD's but perpetuating them at a remarkable pace. 3% is about 1 in 33 - how many people would use 33 condoms in a given year, let alone a lifetime? And 17% is close to 1 in 5! Recent studies show that about 1 in 5 homosexual men in America have HIV and other studies say that about 1 in 5 adults of both genders have an STD of some sort. It does not seem a coincidence that the failure rate of condoms is almost exactly equal to the instance of STD's! The idea that not allowing for condom use is somehow dangerous is backwards! Rather than accept 3 - 17% of the population catching deadly diseases, is it not more humane to promote abstinence and fidelity so that 100% of the population can be disease free? Instead, the ready availability of condoms has given people the mindset that they can have "safe" sex, which leads to more sex, which spreads the disease faster and farther.

Consider this final thought. For Catholics engaged in premarital sex, the church's doctrine on contraceptives and condoms is probably the farthest thing from their mind. For if they are going to sin in this sense, why would they strictly adhere to rules that can be seen as adversarial to their health? For this reason alone the pope's comments should not have been necessary. It is like saying, "If you drive drunk, go ahead and wear a seatbelt." Telling someone to do something that "may" protect them, even when they are doing something incredibly dangerous in and of itself, is not going to solve the bigger problem. No, I think the pope opened pandora's box, and I just hope that he finds a way to close it again before too much damage is done.