When it comes to the Condom Conundrum the National Catholic Fishwrap is in full twit about the Pope’s comments concerning condoms.
A couple days ago I nicknamed this dust up the “Condom Conundrum”. I see that this is being picked up, but I when I see by whom I start to wonder if it was a good idea. In any even, there is nothing new about the phrase “condom conundrum”. It has been used and used and used.
The follow is from Maureen “Copycat” Fiedler of the National Catholic Fishwrap.
The Condom Conundrum [Imitation is the highest form of flattery.]
by Maureen Fiedler on Nov. 24, 2010
We’re seeing as good a sideshow as Catholicism produces. [Doesn’t that trivialize something which is rather important?] According to Rachel Zoll of the Associated Press, many “prominent conservative Roman Catholics in the U.S.” are questioning the Vatican’s own explanation of what Pope Benedict said about condoms in a new book, Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times. [She needed Zoll to tell her that?]
As best anyone can decipher, the Pope approves of the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, and thus save lives. (I’ve always thought that this is an obvious “pro-life” position). [No Maureen. In case you missed the explanations from people who actually understand what the Pope said, the Pope said that condoms are not… not… a moral solution. That means that the Pope does not approve of condom use. He said that their use is neither a real solution (they don’t work) or a moral solution (they are bad). That said, should a male prostitute have an inkling that giving another person a really nasty disease is a bad thing, and decides to use a condom, then that is a step in the right direction. That doesn’t mean he approves of condom use even in that situation. If you need another explanation, try this.] But apparently, several of the most orthodox Catholics who have been bad-mouthing condoms for any reason – even to save lives –await a formal papal statement. [Dear readers, think about how daft that last statement was.] Some have even questioned whether the Vatican spokesperson, Rev. Frederico Lombardi, accurately interpreted the papal position. [That is not an unreasonable thing to do. Fr. Lombardi is not the Pope. When we hear something from Fr. Lombardi, we are hearing Fr. Lombardi, which is not the same thing as hearing the Pope.]
In an ironic twist, Jon O’Brien of Catholics for Choice welcomed the statement. In fact, I think his statement is perhaps the first time I have ever seen his organization praise something the Pope has said!
But the conservatives are the most intriguing. After years of defending papal positions no matter what they say, some of these conservatives are obviously scrambling to find a plausible way to change their own public statements. [She hasn’t been paying attention. “Conservatives”, who understand what Pope Benedict said, are defending this statement because it is right, not because this Pope said it.] Or maybe they are quietly lobbying the Vatican to modify its already modified position on condoms. Whew! Change can be really tough for some folks – maybe tougher than it is for Benedict XVI. [I think that last line was supposed to be ironic.]
Again, “conservatives” are defending the Pope’s statement not because this Pope said it. They are not defending the Pope. They are defending the statement because it is right.
Whether he should have said it or not is another debate.