The recent actions and words of Pope Benedict XVI ignited a firestorm of controversy among individuals and world media. The teachings of the Catholic Church have always been subject to criticism, but clarification is imperative when that criticism is a result of misinformation and misrepresentation by the media. Such criticism distorts the truth by ignoring the context of the Pope’s statements and misstating Church tradition.
When the Pope’s statements are taken in context and Church tradition is stated accurately, their intent is apparent: to guide the world to truth.
A recent New York Times article about indulgences gives evidence of mainstream misunderstanding of Church teaching. It has been said that the “Church’s reintroduction of indulgences” is evidence of Pope Benedict XVI’s archaic attitude; however, a quick reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church would reveal that indulgences could always have been obtained by meeting certain conditions. Contrary to popular belief, Church doctrine has never condoned financial requirements for indulgences and outlawed any such requirements in 1567. Truthful depictions of the Church’s teachings are vital to discussions about its global mission and outreach, especially in areas stricken by disease, poverty, and hatred.
That mission of global outreach recently brought Pope Benedict to AIDS-plagued Africa. During an in-flight interview, the Pope stated that AIDS “cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem.” The “problem” of which he spoke was not a singular infection through the use of a condom in one encounter but the spread of AIDS as a whole.
In that context Pope Benedict’s statement is backed by leading scientists in the field of AIDS research. James Shelton of the U.S. Bureau for Global Health lists “condoms are the answer” as one of the top ten misconceptions about AIDS epidemics. He states that “condoms seem to foster disinhibition, in which people engage in risky sex either with condoms or with the intention of using condoms.”
The Pope echoes Shelton’s point: Distributing condoms gives a false sense of security and could cause individuals to have multiple partners. Shelton goes so far as to say, “Truthfully our priority must be on the key driver of generalized epidemics — concurrent [(non-monogamous)] partnerships.” The argument that sexual behavior cannot and will not change is also a myth Shelton addresses. Declines in multiple partners were accompanied by significant reductions in HIV incidence in Kenya and eastern Zimbabwe. Edward Green, an AIDS researcher at Harvard, notes that in “every African country in which HIV infections have declined, this decline has been associated with a decrease in the proportion of men and women reporting more than one sex partner over the course of a year.”
Decreasing such behavior is exactly what Catholic teachings and organizations promote. Although widely misconstrued, the Pope’s statements about preventing the spread of AIDS are supported by objective research and clearly stated with the best interests of the population in mind.
Much like the Pope’s statements about AIDS prevention, excommunication is frequently misunderstood. There are two forms of excommunication: ferendae sententiae and latae sententiae. Ferendae sententiae is imposed by the judgment of an ecclesiastical official such as the pope, but latae sententiae is incurred automatically when a person commits one of several serious offenses. According to the 1983 Code of Canon Law, abortion is one of those offenses and has been condemned since the earliest days of the Church. Accomplices incur the same penalty by enabling the offense.
Because of that law, the doctors and mother in Brazil who were involved in procuring the abortion of the twins of a nine-year-old girl automatically excommunicated themselves. Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho merely announced the penalty dictated by Church law. The young girl was neither excommunicated nor was she held responsible for the actions of her mother and the doctors.
The situation is unquestionably tragic, but the death of the two children only intensifies that tragedy. Young age pregnancy does not require or necessitate abortion. There is a history of young mothers — most of whom were rape victims — that did not procure abortions. The youngest mother on record was only five years old when she gave birth to her son in Peru in 1939. In 1979, a ten-year-old girl in Indianapolis gave birth to twins. Between 2006 and 2008 there were several cases of girls, ranging in age from 8 to 11, becoming mothers.
The Church supports medical procedures during a pregnancy if the purpose is to save the mother’s life, but the primary intent should never be to destroy innocent human life. The dire situation of the nine-year-old Brazilian girl is truly difficult, but there is reason to believe that the murder of her twins was not necessary.
Once examined, the statements of Pope Benedict XVI are found to be in accord with the opinions of leading scientists and Church teachings. They are words of truth based on proven facts, not “irresponsible, dangerous, and knowingly dishonest discourse.” He speaks for the Church out of a deep understanding of the principles defended by believers for centuries — especially the sanctity of all human life. Pope Benedict’s and Archbishop Sobrinho’s statements were carried out in a spirit of compassion and sincerity to convey a message of hope for the people of Africa, for the victims of violence and rape, and for the people of the world.


Legacy Comments
These comments were imported from our old comments system"Contrary to popular belief, Church doctrine has never condoned financial requirements for indulgences"
................ so... that Luther guy was just fulla hot air? I mean, I'm no historian, but I do seem to remember this thing called The Reformation which I think was somehow linked to indulgences. Again, I could be wrong...
I'm absolutely appalled that you would suggest 9-year-olds should give birth, as though it's not a big deal. Say by some miracle she doesn't die. That doesn't mean she wouldn't suffer serious, permanent health problems. I'd like to know how that 5-year-old's life went. I'm sure it was really awesome. And the fact that a 5-year-old gave birth makes it totally okay for 9-year-olds to give birth, obviously. (Nevermind that Peru probably didn't keep accurate birth records in 1939 and may not have known the girl's exact age.)
Catholics have no compassion when it comes to real and suffering human beings, as opposed to just the unborn. As a friend of mine said, "For Catholics, the unborn have all the human sanctity in the world... until they're born. And then who cares." I have zero respect for Catholics who believe like you do.
I agree with J Tetzel's point about the indulgences. You can't seriously say that the Catholic Church didn't condone selling indulgences for money. And when it was finally outlawed, it was still tacitly condoned as churches kept up the practice. Indulgences are a good example of the Catholic Church preying on human ignorance to increase its power and wealth.
Also, why aren't rape and pedophilia serious enough crimes that warrant immediate excommunication? Is that because too many of the Church's own clergy would have to be excommunicated for molesting little boys? hmm. The father who raped the 9-year-old should be excommunicated. It's only fair. I blame the Catholic Church for its double standards.
Dear "Not a Fan of this Article"-
I feel that your hatred towards the Catholic Church is simply spurred by a complete and total level of misunderstanding. You are clearly not to blame since most of the non-catholic world believes the same as you do.
I find other religion's practices to be appalling and stupid as well. Why is it ok for Muslims to beat up on women and make them cover their entire bodies? Why is it ok for certain religions in Asia and Africa to completely cut off little girls clitorises so that they won't want to have sex? Its not.
But we don't talk about those things because they aren't PC. But apparently slamming the Catholic Church for its beliefs and cultural (yes, cultural) practices has become old hat and we can do it as much as we want because everyone is used to it.
If you don't believe what you think the Catholic Church believes, awesome. Good for you and your higher level of intelligence, or whatever you claim to have. But don't verbally assault those who do. Its straight up none of your business.
I feel like the Catholic Church is kind of like gay marriage. If you don't like it, DON'T PARTICIPATE IN IT! And the leave those who do the hell alone, their beliefs will never affect you.
HAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Oh you catholics are so priceless. This article went less than 4 posts before it degenerated into Fatwah Envy.
Seriously Catholics, quit pretending like you're a persecuted minority. Quit trying to deflect by saying "you don't have the balls to say this about muslims."
People are just as vocal in their critique of Islam, just as vocal in their critique of Evangelical Christianity. You're just not as sensitive to those critiques, and don't notice them in the same way you notice people critical of catholics.
Quit pretending like you are singularly persecuted, or made into monsters by an America that's too afraid to criticize other faiths.
Lastly, your courtier's reply is priceless. "Waaahhh, you're being mean to me!" If you don't want to be verbally assaulted then umm... actually there's nothing you can do about that. If you don't like rude people, tough.
You can't silence criticism of your beliefs because that criticism doesn't follow your rules of etiquette.
Hey now, lets avoid blanket statements like "you catholics." Don't drag an entire demographic into this just because you disagree with the current leadership and those that are vocally defending it.
That said, I do agree that it's ridiculous to accuse anyone of saying it's okay for Muslims to beat up women. Who has said that, ever? While I agree that political correctness might go too far sometimes, and Americans tend to be more sensitive towards the smaller minorities, there's plenty of justification for that. Not very many Catholics get murdered in hate crimes or suffer overt discrimination when they get on airplanes or go to the grocery store. To pretend otherwise is overstating the issue and leaves you open to being criticized for playing the persecution card.
"Why is it ok for Muslims to beat up on women and make them cover their entire bodies? Why is it ok for certain religions in Asia and Africa to completely cut off little girls clitorises so that they won't want to have sex? Its not."
Why is it ok to tell women they can't make decisions about their own reproductive tract? Not even abortion, but contraceptives.
Why is it ok to tell people to be ashamed of their sexuality? That a natural, beautiful part of human life is dirty, and that loving some people will cause to suffer eternally?
Why is it ok to tell women they can't have a geniune connection to God except through a man, and to deny them the vestments? Why is it ok to tell women that WE'RE the root of all evil?
You answered your own question you hypocritical asshole
Dear "angry bitch."
I didn't say any of that was wrong. I said that its not what I believed. You misread. Also, check the last paragraph of my post. If you have a problem with it, don't affiliate yourself with it. Its not cool to trash other people's beliefs. If thats not what you believe, fine, but I'm not trashing your religion or your sexuality or whatever else you've taken offense at.
I'm not being hypocritical. You're just making assumptions.
PS. I'm also NOT CATHOLIC. I just find all of ya'lls posts that are bashing a religion that many people hold dear offensive and rude. If you don't like it, don't do it. Simple. You won't convince an entire religion that their wrong.
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2009/05/if_you_dont_believe_what_i_bel.php
If you don't believe in God, you aren't actually human.
Great. I've been classed as subhuman by a sinister, secretive organisation of blokes in weird uniforms, led by a German who thinks he's infallible. That always ends well.
Unfortunantely, there is quite a large group of severly strict to doctrine and outspoken Catholics that give the rest of us a bad name. The church already doesn't like that I'm a "Cafeteria Catholic" and support gay marriage. I'll be the first catholic to admit that we have a tendency to screw things (and people) up and over. It's a shame that a supremely outspoken and strict and assholish catholics have to ruin the rest of us with their very unchristian views.
I have no intention of changing relgions, but I really, really, hate the Pope...
Spelled "religion" wrong. Damn.
Religion is a plague that should be burned from the face of the Earth.
our western democracies are based on religion. Classical liberalism has its roots in the concept that some rights were given by God and could not be taken away by man or government. Completely new concept at the time and it changed the world forever. Obviously there are some big stains on the historical record, but its not all bad.
I was born Baptist and converted to Catholicism a few years ago. Before my conversion I believed many of the same ignorant statements that many have expressed in response to this article. I believed them because that's what I was taught to believe as a child. After careful research I discovered that most everything I thought I knew about the Roman church was a lie. I also found my personal relationship with God through the Catholic faith. That relationship was completely lacking in my Protestant upbringing and if it weren't for my conversion and my new found relationship with God it is very likely I would be dead right now.
I became addicted to opiates after a sports injury and when I hit rock bottom I was taking enough of them on a daily basis to kill two grown men. Luckily, I never overdosed. I don't know that I would have ever come out of that addiction if it weren't for the love and compassion I found in the Catholic church.
Those spewing hatred on this forum are doing so out of sheer ignorance and misunderstanding, not out of spite. I can't blame them either. Three years ago I would have done the same thing.
Seriously people, do some research before you pass judgment on the faith of over a billion of your fellow man. The church never officially sanctioned financial procurement of indulgences, it merely tolerated an unofficial and unsanctioned practice of (albeit the majority of) local bishops. So, in the name of fairness, the author got that one right. Even if it was on a technicality.
There is no reason that a nine year old should be giving birth? No. A nine year old should not be pregnant. The problem here is in the circumstances leading up to this unfortunate event, not the event itself. A pregnant nine year old is a tragedy, yes; but the bigger tragedy is the potentially unnecessary murder of two innocent children who didn't ask to be conceived. Why should they pay for their mother/father's (whoever is to blame) mistakes with their lives?
And as for the severely messed up life you claim that this child would have if she were allowed to give birth--your argument is moot. No one is saying the girl should keep the children. Clearly, a nine year old knows less than nothing about parenting. The children could have been given up for adoption. They didn't have to die.
To whomever asked it, rape is an excommunicable offense. Why the father wasn't excommunicated I can't say. Maybe he was excommunicated. The Archbishop, like the author said, was not passing judgment and imposing excommunication. He was merely announcing an excommunication that the murderers imposed on themselves when they contracted to kill two innocent children before they even had a chance at life.
Anyway, please don't insult and belittle an entire religion, a religion that has existed since the first millennium, a religion that literally saved my life, simply because you don't understand it. Although, that is likely the problem. You think you understand it. Well, as someone who chooses this faith voluntarily I can tell you you don't know much.
Out of curiosity, Simmer Down, have you ever heard of John XII, Urban II, Gregory IX, Alexander VI, or Leo X?
I understand these popes are hundreds, in one case a thousand years old, but to claim that all misgivings about Catholicism are the result of ignorance and misinformation is pretty presumptuous.
I received confirmation, and was a practicing Catholic, but there are definitely some aspects of the faith, historical, political, and spiritual, which I find troubling.
Benedict's call for women to be "more subservient" for instance, or the church's continued refusal to allow women into the clergy, the anti-condom campaign, the paedophilia scandal, and the centuries-long tradition of being anti-intellectual, anti-liberty, and anti-tolerance are real issues.
You should stop assuming that everyone in the world started out from the position of ignorance you did. There are very real reasons to condemn Catholicism beyond the imagined dogma your fundamentalist parents fed you.
not kidnapped by imaginary black people,
Would you be so kind as to support your claims of centuries long traditions of being anti-intellectual with some post Vatican II evidence?