Poor Pope Benedict and the Vatican just can't seem to get a clear story line about condoms. This is a story that just won't die. Was it intentional or an unthinking error in discourse when the pope told a German interviewer that the use of condoms might "sometimes be justified" and gave as an example a male prostitute (presumably with male clients) using condoms to prevent infection.
Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that there are male prostitutes for women, not just for other men, and sometimes it's the same male prostitutes who can perform with either. It's the money, more than sex, that turns them on. Presumably, in the pope's view, they mustn't use condoms with women but might with men. But that's being totally ignored, and only complicates the story, which is complicated enough already.
The pope's comment had to be intentional, since the interview was published in book form with the Vatican's approval of the content -- at least the German version -- in which he says "male prostitute." The Italian translation says "female prostitute" -- which sends up the red flags about contraception -- but they're now saying that will be corrected in future editions of the Italian. So, yes, they're confirming that the pope said "male prostitute."
But what did he mean? That's another question. It sparked worldwide speculation that this was a crack in the door of the church's total opposition to contraception. And was it in some sense an acceptance of homosexuality, as well? And prostitution? Not so fast, the Vatican now says.
First of all, they have clarified that the book adds that the pope said this is not part of "a real or a moral solution" to the problem, but it could be a first step toward taking responsibility to prevent the spread of infection. OK.
But then you're left, in my opinion, with even greater problems of explanation. Trying to separate it from contraception just gets you into a tangle. This would mean that two people having sex where neither of them could get pregnant -- so there's no contraception involved -- could use condoms and stay safe; but if one of them could get pregnant, then you can't use condoms and, conceivably (sorry, bad choice of word), they could die from the encounter. And this would include, presumably, the wife of an HIV infected husband.
Here's the logical conclusion: a homosexual prostitute encounter can use condoms but a heterosexual prostitute encounter can't. Now we're into the area of gender discrimination -- in a matter of life and death.
Second, now the walk-back from the Vatican is saying that this should not be taken as any change in church policy, because the pope was "speaking colloquially" and not as a part of official church teaching. A half page
New York Times article today explores this difference:
As is often the case with the Vatican, the clarification yielded more ambiguity. Was Benedict . . . opening up a conversation on condom use -- albeit in specific cases to prevent AIDS between male sex partners -- or wasn't he? And how is the world supposed to consider remarks by the pope that are not official church teaching?
"It is not very easy to define the difference," said Sandro Magister, a veteran Vatican reporter in Italy. In the "graduated spectrum of authority" between official church teachings -- encyclicals, laws, homilies -- and Benedict's conversational remarks, "I'd say this is an inferior grade."
Do they think the world's billions of people who hear this will appreciate this subtle difference? It must be frustrating to the PR-challenged Vatican insiders to have a simple sentence, given as an example, take on such vast importance -- not only to the more than a billion Roman Catholics worldwide, but to the larger world of media curiosity. But that's what you get when you set one man up as the authority on earth of God Almighty.
Words are heard, parsed, weighed, contextualized, or not -- and they matter. Accept the pope as a supreme moral authority -- or not -- there is no way he can make an off-hand remark and have it not matter. Nor do I think they meant to. It's just that they didn't think through the illogic of the position, because they are in this theological bubble that most of us don't share.
If the pope wanted to "start a conversation" and begin to rethink the whole question of contraception as well as non-procreative sex, then he has at least set it in motion. But so far it sounds like the Vatican response is more damage control than engagement in dialogue.
As I've said before, in my irreverent critique of the illogic of the church's positions: it's hard to make sense in explaining a policy that doesn't make sense. Because how are you going to explain this:
maybe it's justified for a male prostitute to protect his male clients, but it's
not justified for a married, HIV infected man to protect his own wife?
One thing does seem to be clear, however:
Behind all the furor, this was an attempt to undo the damage the pope's former remarks about condoms increasing the spread of AIDS. Because here clearly he gives as an example a (perhaps) justified use of condoms to prevent infection. Take note of that.
Ralph
