i. Rhonheimer vs. Smith ja Gormally

Isa Rhonheimer vastab Janet Smithi ja Luke Gormally kriitikale... ja Janet Smith omakorda i. Rhonheimerile... ja i. Rhonheimer "lõplikult" Janet Smithile.

UDK seksuaalsuse trivialiseerimisest

Lõpuks on Usudoktriini Kongregatsioon välja andnud noodi "Seksuaalsuse trivialiseerimisest" (tõlge ingliskeelse teksti põhjal):

Benedictus XVI intervjuu-raamatu "Maailma valgus" väljaandmise järel on esile kerkinud mitmeid väärtõlgendusi, mis on põhjustanud segadust Katoliku Kiriku positsiooni osas seksuaalmoraali teatud küsimustes. Paavsti mõtet on korduvalt manipuleeritud tema sõnade tähenduse suhtes täiesti võõrastel eesmärkidel ja huvides -- tähenduse, mis on ilmne igaühele, kes loeb tervikuna peatükke, milles inimseksuaalsust on käsitletud. Püha Isa intentsioon on selge: taasavastada inimseksuaalsuse jumalik and ja vältida sel moel kaasajal tavaliseks saanud seksuaalsuse madaldamist.

Mõned tõlgendused on esitanud paavsti sõnu vastuolus olevana Kiriku traditsioonilisele moraaliõpetusele. Mõned on seda hüpoteesi tervitanud kui positiivset muutust ja teised on seda murelikult kahetsenud -- nagu väljendaks tema avaldus katkestust kontratseptsiooni puudutavas doktriinis ja Kiriku seisukohas AIDSi-vastases võitluses. Tegelikult ei tähista paavsti sõnad -- mis spetsiifiliselt puudutavad inimkäitumise rängalt väärastunud vormi, nimelt prostitutsiooni (cf. Light of the World, lk. 117-119) -- muutust katoliiklikus moraaliõpetuses ega Kiriku pastoraalses praktikas.

Nagu on selge vastavate lehekülgede tähelepanelikust lugemisest, ei rääkinud Püha Isa ei abielumoraalist ega kontratseptsiooni puudutavast moraalinormist. See norm kuulub Kiriku traditsiooni ja on tabavalt kokku võetud paavst Paulus VI poolt entsüklika Humanae vitae 14. paragrahvis, kus ta kirjutas, et "samuti tuleb välistada mistahes tegu, mis seksuaalakti eel, selle ajal või pärast seda on mõeldud spetsiifiliselt selleks, et vältida elu edasiandmist -- olgu siis eesmärgi või vahendina". Mõte, et keegi võiks Benedictus XVI sõnadest järeldada, et teatud situatsioonides on lubatud [/legitiimne] kasutada kondoomi soovimatu raseduse vältimiseks on täiesti meelevaldne ega ole mingilgi moel põhjendatud ei tema sõnade ega mõttega. Selles küsimuses paneb paavst ette -- ning kutsub Kiriku karjaseid sagedamini ja tõhusamalt seda ette panema (cf. Light of the World, lk. 147) –- inimlikult ja eetiliselt vastuvõetavad käitumisviisid, mis austavad lahutamatut seost iga abieluakti ühendava ja elu edasiandva tähenduse vahel, koos loomuliku pereplaneerimise võimaliku kasutamisega vastutustundliku vanemlikkuse raames.

Kõne all olevail lehekülgedel osutab Püha Isa täiesti teistsugusele prostitutsiooni teemale, käitumisviisile, mida kristlik moraalsus on alati käsitanud rängalt ebamoraalsena (cf. Vatikani II Kirikukogu, pastoraalne konstitutsioon Gaudium et spes, n. 27; Katoliku Kiriku Katekismus, n. 2355). Kogu kristliku traditsiooni -- ja tegelikult mitte ainult kristliku traditsiooni -- vastuse prostitutsiooni praktikale võib võtta kokku p. Pauluse sõnadega: "Põgenege liiderlikkuse eest" (1Ko 6,18). Prostitutsioonist tuleb loobuda ning nii Kiriku, tsiviilühiskonna kui riigi institutsioonide kohus on teha kõik nendest olenev, et vabastada sellesse hõlmatuid.

Selles osas tuleb märkida, et situatsioon, mille on esile kutsunud AIDSi levik maailma paljudes piirkondades, on teinud prostitutsiooni probleemi veelgi tõsisemaks. Need, kes teavad end olevat nakatunud HIV-ga ning kes seetõttu riskivad teiste nakatamisega, patustavad lisaks kuuendale käsule ka viienda käsu vastu -- kuna nad asetavad teadlikult teiste elu ohtu käitumisega, millel on järelmõjud rahva tervisele. Selles situatsioonis kinnitab Püha Isa selgelt, et kondoomide pakkumine ei ole "reaalne või moraalne lahendus" AIDSi probleemile ning samuti, et "pelk fikseerumine kondoomidele toob kaasa [implies] seksuaalsuse labastamise" kuivõrd seeläbi keeldutakse osutamast väärastunud inimlikule käitumisele, mis on viiruse leviku peamine põhjus. Ometi ei saa selles kontekstis eitada, et igaüks, kes kasutab kondoomi selleks, et vähendada ohtu teise inimese jaoks, kavatseb vähendada kurja, mis on seotud tema ebamoraalse tegevusega. Selles mõttes osutab Püha Isa, et kondoomi kasutamine "kavatsusega vähendada nakatumise ohtu võib olla esimene samm liikumisel teises suunas, seksuaalsuse inimlikuma kasutamise poole". See kinnitus on selgelt kooskõlas Püha Isa eelneva avaldusega, et see ei ole "tegelikult tee HIV nakkuse hädaga [evil] tegelemiseks".

Mõned kommentaatorid on tõlgendanud Benedictus XVI sõnu vastavalt niinimetatud "väiksema kurja" teooriale. See teooria on aga avatud proportsionalistlikule väärtõlgendusele (cf. Johannes Paulus II, entsüklika Veritatis splendor, n. 75-77). Tegu, mis on objektiivselt kuri, olgugi väiksem kuri, ei saa kunagi olla legitiimselt tahetud. Püha Isa ei öelnud -- nagu mõned isikud on väitnud --, et prostitutsiooni kondoomide kasutamisega võib valida kui väiksemat kurja. Kirik õpetab, et prostitutsioon on ebamoraalne ja sellest tuleb loobuda.

Ometi need, kes on hõlvatud prostitutsioonis ja on HIV-positiivsed ning püüavad vähendada nakkuse ohtu, kasutades kondoomi, võivad astuda esimese sammu teise isiku elu austamise suunas -- isegi kui prostitutsiooni kurjus jääb alles kogu selle raskuses. See arusaam on täielikus kooskõlas Kiriku moraaliteoloogilise traditsiooniga.

Kokkuvõtteks, AIDSi-vastases võitluses peavad katoliiklased ja Katoliku Kiriku agentuurid olema ligi nendele, kes kannatavad, peavad hoolitsema haigete eest ja peavad julgustama kõiki elama [seksuaalses] karskuses enne abielu ja ustavuses abielu ajal. Selles osas on samuti oluline hukka mõista mistahes käitumine, mis madaldab seksuaalsust, sest nagu paavst ütleb, on selline käitumine põhjuseks, miks nii paljud inimesed ei näe enam seksuaalsuses oma armastuse väljendust: "Seepärast on võitlus seksuaalsuse labastamise vastu samuti osa võitlusest selle eest, et seksuaalsust käsitletaks positiivse väärtusena ning et võimaldada sellel positiivselt toimida inimese terviklikule olemisele" (Light of the World, lk. 119).

Luke Gormally vs. i. Rhonheimer

Sandro Magister jätkab Chiesas moraaliteoloogilise diskussiooni vahendamist, väljendades küll üsna ühemõtteliselt poolehoidu i. Rhonheimeri seisukohale, aga avaldades ka selle suhtes kriitilisi kirjutisi.

Steven A. Long vs. i. Rhonheimer

Long analüüsib i. Rhonheimeri positsioone, osutades tema ebakorrektsele vihjele nagu oleks Usudoktriini Kongregatsioon tema seisukoha mitteametlikult heaks kiitnud, ning intentsionalismile tema moraaliteoloogilistes seisukohtades.

George Weigel intentsionalismist ja kondomooniast

First Things esitab George Weigeli ülevaate asjade seisust.

Euroopa Inimõiguste Kohus vs. Iiri Vabariik

Eile avaldati Euroopa Inimõiguste Kohtu otsus, mis käsitleb kolme süüdistust Iiri Vabariigi vastu abordi küsimuses. Mõned uudised räägivad justkui oleks kohus tunnistanud Iiri abordi-seadused inimõigustega vastuolus olevaks, ent tegelikult see ei olnud nii. Selle kinnituseks toon järgnevad lõigud otsusest:

213. [...] Article 8 cannot be interpreted as meaning that pregnancy and its termination pertain uniquely to the woman’s private life as, whenever a woman is pregnant, her private life becomes closely connected with the developing foetus. The woman’s right to respect for her private life must be weighed against other competing rights and freedoms invoked including those of the unborn child [...]

214. [...] Article 8 cannot, accordingly, be interpreted as conferring a right to abortion [...]

227.  The Court concludes that the impugned restriction therefore pursued the legitimate aim of the protection of morals of which the protection in Ireland of the right to life of the unborn was one aspect.

233.  There can be no doubt as to the acute sensitivity of the moral and ethical issues raised by the question of abortion or as to the importance of the public interest at stake. A broad margin of appreciation is, therefore, in principle to be accorded to the Irish State in determining the question whether a fair balance was struck between the protection of that public interest, notably the protection accorded under Irish law to the right to life of the unborn, and the conflicting rights of the first and second applicants to respect for their private lives under Article 8 of the Convention.

241.  Accordingly, having regard to the right to lawfully travel abroad for an abortion with access to appropriate information and medical care in Ireland, the Court does not consider that the prohibition in Ireland of abortion for health and well-being reasons, based as it is on the profound moral views of the Irish people as to the nature of life (paragraphs 222-227 above) and as to the consequent protection to be accorded to the right to life of the unborn, exceeds the margin of appreciation accorded in that respect to the Irish State. In such circumstances, the Court finds that the impugned prohibition in Ireland struck a fair balance between the right of the first and second applicants to respect for their private lives and the rights invoked on behalf of the unborn.

Teiselt poolt osutas kohus Euroopa Liidu liikmesriikide "konsensusele" laiema indikatsiooni suhtes abordi taotlemise alusena ja avaldas "pehmet" survet Iiri abordiseaduste liberaliseerimiseks.

Põhjalikum analüüs organisatsioonilt "European Centre for Law and Justice".

Vt. ka LifeSiteNews ülevaade.

Paavsti sõnum rahupäevaks

Benedictus XVI sõnum Ülemaailmseks Rahupäevaks 1.01.2011.

Järgnevalt kardinal Peter Turksoni ülevaade sõnumi teemadest:

3. PRINCIPAL THEMES OF THE MESSAGE

3.1. The Nature of religious freedom. Religious freedom is a “way to peace” because of what it is essentially. Rooted in the dignity of the human person (body and spirit), with a vocation to transcendence, religious freedom expresses that capacity and longing in every person to seek to realize oneself fully in relationship, opening up to God and to others. It expresses the search for meaning in life and for the discovery of values and principles which make life, alone and in community, meaningful. Religious freedom, ultimately, is the expression of man’s capacity to seek the truth of God and the truth about himself, as “a maker of an earthly city which anticipates the heavenly city” of justice, peace and happiness.

3.2. The right to religious freedom. Religious freedom is not considered a human right just because the Universal Declaration affirms it. Religious freedom is not a right granted by a State. Its foundation is not to be found in the subjective disposition of the person.[2] With the other rights of man, the right of religious freedom is derived, as Pope John XXIII and subsequent Church doctrines have taught, from natural law and from the dignity of the person which are rooted in creation. Rather, the State and other public institutions, as Pope Benedict XVI recalls in par. 8 of his Message, need to recognize it as intrinsic to the human person and in its expressions, as indispensable for its integrity and peace.

3.3. Religious freedom is a duty of public authority (par.10). Although religious freedom does not need the State or even the Universal Declaration to establish it, it is not an unlimited right. To ensure that religious freedom makes for peace and is not abused, as in the case of Pastor Jim Jones who led a group of believers to their death in Guyana , “the just limits of the exercise of religious freedom must be determined in each social situation with political prudence, according to the requirements of common good.”[3] Cfr. Message no. 10.

3.4. Religious freedom and the search for truth. Religious freedom then, as the Holy Father recalls in his Message (par. 3), is freedom from coercion and freedom for the truth: the (religious) truth of seeking the God of man’s creation, “for what does the soul desire more strongly than the truth?”[4] It is the absolute truth of God, the longing of man’s soul; and it is this truth which calls forth the expression of freedom in man (his freewill) to respond to it. Thus religious freedom does not refer, first and foremost, to man’s decision or his choice between one and the other religion, although this can be an expression of it (as in the Universal Declaration). Religious freedom refers primarily to man’s freedom to express his being capax Dei: his freedom to respond to the truth of his nature as created by God and created for life with God without coercion or impediments.[5] It is in this that man finds his peace, and from there becomes an instrument of peace.

3.5. Religious freedom and identity. Religious freedom does not imply that all religions are equal. Nor is it a reason for religious relativism or indifferentism.[6] Religious freedom is compatible with defense of one’s religious identity against relativism, syncretism and fundamentalism: all abused forms of religious freedom.

3.6. Communal dimension of religious freedom. Religious freedom is also an expression of a person that is at once individual and communitarian (cfr. Message no. 6). Religious freedom is not limited to the free exercise of worship. There is a public dimension to it, which grants believers the chance of making their contribution in building the social order. Let us recall here the four faith-filled founders/architects of the European Union (Adenauer, De Gasperi, Schuman and Monnet), the centers of learning and culture of the Church, the very many developmental, health-care and educational projects of the Church in mission countries, and so on.

As Pope Benedict XVI would say, the Church’s social doctrine came into being in order to claim citizenship status for the Catholic religion. Denying the right to profess one’s religion in public and the right to bring the truth of faith to bear upon public life has negative consequences for true development.[7] Similarly, “refusal to recognize the contribution to society that is rooted in the religious dimension and in the quest for the Absolute – by its nature, expressing communion between persons – would effectively privilege an individualistic approach, and would fragment the unity of the person.”[8]

The exercise of the right of religious freedom as a way to peace thus implies the recognition of the harmony that must exist between the two areas and forms of life: private and public, individual and community, person and society. A Catholic (believer) therefore is not only a subject of religious freedom, but also a member of a “body”. Submitting, therefore, to that body is not a loss of freedom. It becomes an expression of fidelity to the “body”; and fidelity is the development of freedom.

Furthermore, there is a unity of reciprocal relationship between the individual and one’s community, a person and one’s society. A person is born and lives in relationships, and the purpose of community is to promote the life of a person. Accordingly, the development and the exercise of one’s religious freedom, is also the task of one’s community. Families and schools (places of formation) are often the primary agents of formation in religious freedom. In multi-cultural and multi-religious communities, schools and institutions are also the privileged places of training in tolerance and dialogue in the exercise of religious freedom for peaceful coexistence.[9]

3.7. Religious freedom and dialogue. For Benedict XVI, religious dialogue, conducted according to charity and truth, is a resource for the common good (cfr. Message no. 11). Dialogue should be recognized as the means by which various bodies can articulate their points of view and build consensus around the truth concerning particular values or goals. It pertains to the nature of religions, freely practiced, that they can autonomously conduct a dialogue of thought and life with view to placing their experiences at the service of the common good.[10] Precisely this dialogue is the objective of the official dialogue groups in the Church, and even of a small initiative like the Cardinal Lüstiger Foundation for dialogue with Judais m. [11] The same objective can inspire an active dialogue between the free practice of one’s religion and unbelievers, between faith and reason. “Fruitful dialogue between faith and reason cannot but render the work of charity more effective within society, and it constitutes the most appropriate framework for promoting fraternal collaboration between believers and non-believers in their shared commitment to working for justice and the peace of the human family.”[12]

3.8. Religious freedom and the State (protection). Although religious freedom is not established by the State, it (the State) nevertheless, needs to recognize it as intrinsic to the human person and in its public and communitarian expressions. This recognition of religious freedom and a respect for the innate dignity of every person also imply the principle of the responsibility to protect on the part of the community, society and the State. “Every State has the primary duty to protect its population from grave and sustained violations of human rights, …. If States are not able to guarantee such protection, the international community must intervene with the juridical means provided in the UN Charter and in other international instruments.”[13]

3.9. Religious freedom is motivated by Solidarity and not Reciprocity. The Church’s appeals for religious freedom are not based on a claim of reciprocity, whereby one group respects the rights of others only if the latter respect the rights of the group. Rather, the appeals for religious freedom are based on the dignity of persons. We respect the rights of others because it is the right thing to do, not in exchange for its equivalent or for a favour granted. At the same time, when others suffer persecution because of their faith and religious practice, we offer them compassion and solidarity.

3.10. Conclusion: Religious freedom and the Missionary Charge. The missionary charge of Jesus to his apostles to go preach his Gospel to the whole world brings us back to consider the nexus between freedom and truth in the exercise of religious freedom. The observation was made above, referring to St. Augustine , that there is nothing which the soul desires more strongly than the truth. It was then observed that true freedom desires the truth, God. All proclamation of the Gospel, as the good news of Jesus Christ, is an effort to awaken the freedom (religious freedom) of man to desire and to embrace the truth of the Gospel. This truth of the Gospel, however, is unique, because it is truth that saves (Mk.16:15-16). It is different from all other truths, arrived at as a fruit of the cognitive activity of man. It is as such an offer of unique saving truth that the Gospel is preached to all creation.

Evangelization and the carrying out of the missionary charge, then, do not contradict and oppose the sense of religious freedom. Rather evangelization stirs up the religious freedom of every person and drives it towards the truth that saves, in the hope that persons in their religious freedom would desire it and embrace it. In the embrace of the truth that saves, all religious freedom enjoys the peace that, on earth, is bestowed “on all on whom his favour rests”!

Smith vs. Rhonheimer

Kondomoonia jätkub:

• Isa Martin Rhonheimer vastab Our Sunday Visitor küsimustele ja kirjutab Chiesale;
• Janet E. Smith vastab isa Rhonheimerile OSV-s. (viide HoC)

Vaesus ja ülerahvastatus

Population Research Institute on lasknud välja järjekordse humoorika selgituse ülerahvastuse müüdi kummutamiseks (LifeSiteNews):

Väiksem kuri

John Allen Jr. on oma kirjutises "Ainult Benedictus saaks minna Hiinasse" lõpuks kohendanud oma positsiooni, tunnistades, et "ametlik katoliiklik seisukoht on endiselt, et selleks, et seks oleks täielikult moraalne, peab see toimuma heteroseksuaalses abielus ja olema avatud uuele elule" ning et küsimuse all ei ole "niivõrd moraaliteoloogia kuivõrd vaimne küpsemine":

For the record, Benedict's recent comments on condoms do not amount to a reversal of church teaching on human sexuality. The official Catholic view remains that to be fully moral, sex must occur within the context of heterosexual marriage and must be open to new life.

The way Benedict approaches the question in Light of the World actually seems to have less to do with moral theology than spiritual maturation, suggesting that concern for someone else's life and health, even if expressed by the dubious choice to put on a condom, could represent the first stirrings of a sense of responsibility.

Edasi aga osutab ta, et paavsti märkused "näivad äratavat taas ellu liini katoliiklikus moraalireflektsioonis, mille kodifitseeris p. Alphonsus Liguori 18. sajandil ja mis tugines pihiisade pikaajalisele praktikale, tuntud kui 'nõuandmine väiksemaks kurjaks'":

Yet if only indirectly, that analysis does appear to revive a strain in Catholic moral reflection codified by St. Alphonsus Liguori in the 18th century, which built on long-standing practice among confessors, known as "counseling the lesser evil." In a nutshell, it holds that if someone is engaging in behavior the church regards as sinful, and they can't be persuaded to stop, it's permissible to advise them to at least minimize the harm.

Ja tõepoolest, oma "Moraaliteoloogias" kirjutas p. Alphonsus Liguori:

Utrum liceat suadere, aut permittere minus malum ad majus evitandum?

Prima sententia negat, prout tenet Laym. de Car.c. 12. n. 7. cum Azor et aliis. Ratio, quia  comparativum non tollit positivum; unde qui suadet minus malem, vere malum suadet. Limitat vero Laym. cum Azor. nisi malum illum sit virtualiter inclusum in illo alio majori. Sic parato aliquem occidere potes suadere, ut manum tantum amputet; eidem tamen, non alteri designato; sic etiam volenti adulterati potes suadere fornicare cum soluta in generali non autem in particulari. Admittunt hoc Salm. loc. cit. dummodo ille decreverit utrumque malum patrare, cum Nav. etc. At Laym. indistincte loquitur, et Sanch. cum secunda sententia, ut mox dicetur, hac limitationem expresse rejicit: quia (dicit) tunc minus malum proponitur, non ut alter illum perpetret, set ut a majori retrehatur.

Secunda igitur sententia probabilior tenet, licitum esse minus malum suadere, si alter jam determinatus fuerit ad majus exequendum. Ratio, quia tunc suadens non quaerit malum, sed bonum, scilicet, electionem minoris mali. Ita Sanch. de Matrim. lib. 7 d.  XI. n. 15. cum Sot. Mol. Nav. Medin. Sylvest. et aliis pluribus, ac Salm. tract. 21. c. 8. n. 58. cum Cajet.Sot.Pal.Bonac. etc. probabilem putat Croix lib. 2. n. 223. Hinc docet id. Sanch. n. 19. cum Cajet. Sot. Covar. Valent. parato aliquem occidere, licite posse suaderi, ut ab eo furetur, vel ut fornicetur. Et probat ex S. August. in c. Si quis verius, 33. q. 5. ubi: Si enim facturus est, quod non licet, jam faciat adulterium, et non faciat homicidium; et vivente uxore sua, alteram ducat, et non humanum sanguinem fundat. Ex quibus verbis, jam faciat adulterium, probat Sanch. dict. n. 15. cum Soto, Mol. Nav. Abb. etc. S. doctorem, non tantum permittendo, sed etiam suadendo locutum fuisse. Et hoc addit Sanch. n. 23. cum Sal. licere non solum privatis, sed etiam confessariis, parentium, et aliis, quibus ex officio incumbit, impedire peccata subditorum." (Lib.II, Tract.III, De Praecept. Charitatis, Cap.II, n.57, [Page:n260])

Üritan järgnevalt seda ka tõlkida ingliskeelset tõlget appi võttes:

Kas võib [kedagi] veenda [tegema], või lubada [teha] väiksemat kurja, et vältida suuremat?

Esimene arvamus eitab [seda], nagu arvab Laym. (de car. c. 12 n. 7) koos Azor. ja teistega. Põhjendus: kuna võrreldav [parem] ei kõrvalda positiivset [kurja]; seetõttu, kes veenab [tegema] väiksemat kurja, veenab [tegema] tõesti kurja. Ent Laym. ja Azor. piiravad seda [üldist keeldu?], [nii] et antud [väiksem] kuri peab virtuaalselt sisalduma selles suuremas. Nõnda, kui keegi on otsustanud [teise] tappa, võid teda veenda, et ta raiuks vaid käe; ent samal [inimesel], mitte kellelgi teisel osutatul; nõnda ka seda, kes tahab abielu rikkuda, võib veenda seda tegema vallalisega, ent üldiselt, mitte spetsiifiliselt [kellegagi]. Sellega nõustuvad Salm. (loc. cit.), Nav. jt. tingimusel, et ta on otsustanud kumbagi kurja teha. Ent Laym. räägib ebaselgelt, ja Sanch. lükkab teise arvamusega, millest kohe räägime, selle piirangu otseselt tagasi, põhjendades, et sel juhul pannakse ette väiksem kuri mitte selleks, et teine seda teeks, vaid et ta suuremast taganeks.

Seepärast on teine arvamus tõenäolisem, nimelt, et võib veenda [tegema] väiksemat kurja, kui teine on juba otsustanud suuremat korda saata. Põhjendus: kuna sel juhul ei taotle veenmine kurja, vaid head, nimelt väiksema kurja valimist. Nii peavad Sanch. (de Matrim. lib. 7. d. XI. n. 15) koos Sot., Mol., Nav., Medin., Sylvest. ja paljude teistega, ning Salm. (tract. 21. c. 8. n. 58.) koos Cajet., Sot., Bal., Bonac. etc. Croix (lib. 2. n. 223.) seda tõenäolisemaks.  Seepärast õpetab Sanch. (n. 19.) koos Cajet., Sot., Covar., Valent., et on õiguspärane veenda inimest, kes on otsustanud kedagi tappa, et ta sooritaks [selle asemel] varguse või liiderlikkuseakti. Ja tõestab seda p. Augustinuse põhjal c. Si quos verius, (33. q. 5.) [järgmisest] kohast: kui [keegi] on juba otsustanud [teha midagi], mis pole lubatud, siis rikkugu [pigem] abielu ja ärgu tapku; ja kuigi ta naine elab, naitugu teisega, aga ärgu valagu inimese verd. Sanch. (dict. n. 15.) koos Soto, Mol., Nav., Abb. jt. tõestab, et nende sõnadega: rikkugu [pigem] abielu, räägib püha doktor mitte ainult lubamisest, vaid ka veenmisest. Ja see, lisab Sanch. (n. 23.) koos Sal., on lubatud mitte ainult eraisikutele, vaid ka pihi vastuvõtjatele, vanematele ja teistele, kellel lasub ameti poolest kohustus hoida ära neile alluvate patte.

 P. Alphonsus Liguori moraaliteoloogia esitlus sai terava kriitika osaliseks anglikaanide poolt, kes esitasid näiteid sellest kui tõestusi Rooma kiriku allakäigu kohta. Sh. üheks peamiseks näiteks oligi p. Alphonsuse ülaltoodud tsitaat, mis pidi tõestama, et Rooma kirik "lubab teha kurja, et sellest tõuseks head". Oma vastuses sellele kriitikale kirjutas õnnis John Henry Newman:

But, in truth, a Catholic theologian has objects in view which men in general little compass; he is not thinking of himself, but of a multitude of souls, sick souls, sinful souls, carried away by sin, full of evil, and he is trying with all his might to rescue them from their miserable state; and, in order to save them from more heinous sins, he tries, to the full extent that his conscience will allow him to go, to shut his eyes to such sins, as are, though sins, yet lighter in character or degree. He knows perfectly {368} well that, if he is as strict as he would wish to be, he shall be able to do nothing at all with the run of men; so he is as indulgent with them as ever he can be. Let it not be for an instant supposed, that I allow of the maxim of doing evil that good may come; but, keeping clear of this, there is a way of winning men from greater sins by winking for the time at the less, or at mere improprieties or faults; and this is the key to the difficulty which Catholic books of moral theology so often cause to the Protestant. They are intended for the Confessor, and Protestants view them as intended for the Preacher.

Ülaltoodut võib vaadelda ka püha Alphonsus Liguori ja õndsa John Henry Newmani kommentaarina käesolevale kondomooniale või õigemini katoliikliku blogosfääri reaktsioonile meedia reaktsioonile paavsti märkustele.

Intervjuu Msgr. Guido Pozzoga

NLM-is on nüüd üleval täielik tekst intervjuust Ecclesia Dei sekretäri Msgr. Guido Pozzoga.

GoupilChant

New Liturgical Movement vahendab suurepärast liturgilise muusika ressurssi.

Head sõnumid anglikaanide ühinemisest

Rorate Coeli vahendab Traditsioonilise Anglikaani Kommuniooni primaadi, +John Hepworthi avaldust.

Mõned viljad on ka head

Ühena esimestest on Keenia Piiskoppide Konverents võtnud seisukoha väärtõlgendamist leidnud märkuste osas, kinnitades püsivat katoliiklikku õpetust (allAfrica.com):

REMARKS ON CONDOMS ATTRIBUTED TO THE HOLY FATHER, POPE BENEDICT XVI

We have witnessed recent reports on comments attributed to The Holy Father, that have been carried in the international and local media, that have misrepresented the remarks of Pope Benedict XVI on the issue of sexual morality and the struggle against the HIV and AIDS infection.

First we would like to clear the air and to clarify to all the people, and to the Catholics, regarding the position of the Church with regard to the use of condoms for the peace of mind and proper guidance.

1. We reiterate and reaffirm that the position of the Catholic Church as regards the use of condoms, both as a means of contraception and as a means of addressing the grave issue of HIV/AIDS infection has not changed and remains as always unacceptable.

2. The media reports have unfairly quoted the Pope out of context and banalized the deeply sensitive medical, moral and pastoral issues of HIV/AIDS and accompaniment of those infected or affected, reducing the discussion on the demands of sexual morality to a mere comment on condoms.

3. The book in question "Light of the World: the Pope, the Church and the Signs of Times. A conversation of Pope Benedict XVI with Peter Seewald" was the result of an interview. It was not written by the Pope even though it expresses his ideas, concerns and sufferings over these years, his pastoral projects and his hopes for the future.

4. To reduce "the entire interview to one phrase removed from its context and from the entirety of Pope Benedict XVI though would be an offence to the Pope's intelligence and a gratuitous manipulation of his words."

5. The pope was not speaking specifically on the morality of condom use, but more generally "about the great questions facing modern theology, the various political events that have always marked relations between States and finally, the themes that often occupy a large part of public debate."

6. It is important to explain that the morality of human actions always depends on the intentions of the person. It is the way we use things that make the action evil or good. The use of condoms is unacceptable because it is often an external manifestation of the wrong intention of the action, and a distorted view of sexuality.

7. The church and indeed the Holy Father reaffirms that "naturally the Church does not consider condoms as the "authentic and moral solution" to the problem of AIDS." Rather a true change of heart or conversion that will give the sexuality its human and even supernatural value. We need to appreciate better the gift of sexuality, that humanizes us and when well appreciated remains open to God's plan.

8. The situation referred to by the media, which quotes an interview made to the Pope by a German journalist, involves the Pope's judgment on the subjective moral journeying of subjects who are already involved in gravely immoral acts in themselves, specifically in acts of homosexuality and male prostitution, thankfully totally alien to our Kenyan society. HE is not speaking on the morality of the use of condoms, but on something that may be true about the psychological state of those who use them. If such individuals are using condoms to avoid harming another, they may eventually realize that sexual acts between members of the same sex are inherently harmful since they are not in accord with human nature. This in no way condones the use of condoms in itself.

9. The Holy Father brings out an important point, that even those who find themselves deeply entrenched in immoral life, can gradually journey towards a conversion, and acceptance of God's laws. This journey may have steps which may in themselves not yet include a total submission to God's law, but rather a step closer to accepting it. However, those acts still remain sinful.

10. The church is always going to be focused on moving people away from immoral acts towards love of Jesus, virtue, and holiness. We can say that the Holy Father clearly did not want to make a point about condoms, but wants to talk about growth in moral sense, which should be a growth towards Jesus. This also applies to those still living in seriously immoral lifestyles, we should strive more and more to focus on the morality of the human actions, and judge rather the action of the human person and not the object used for an immoral action.

11. The church urges those involved in prostitution and other gravely immoral acts or lifestyle to conversion. While understanding the many unfortunate reasons that often lead to this lifestyle, it does not condone it, and regards it as morally wrong.

12. The church is gravely concerned about the life, the health and the general welfare of those who find themselves in this difficult and painful situation of HIV/AIDS infection. In fact the amount of efforts and resource mobilization by the Catholic Church, both in partnerships with others and on her own, will always be aimed at a search for human and liberating solutions to the pandemic.

13. The problem is really more than just the condom debate. Rather a deeper interior healing, that gives people hope and helps them to rediscover the simplicity and radicalism of the Gospel and Christianity in accompanying to give and reaffirm hope to those infected and to those affected.

The church reaffirms her commitment to continue to urge all people to struggle to live good moral lives, which always means great sacrifices, for the "kingdom of God." The church reaffirms her solidarity with all those suffering from HIV/AIDS. There exists many ways to face up to this situation. Above all the church trusts in the power of Grace and the strength God gives, to positively face the challenges this new situation presents, and with Hope, journey together with all God's family towards our heavenly homeland.

WE EXPRESS OUR CONCERN AND SOLIDARITY WITH THESE OUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS AND BLESS THEM.

Signed: [Järgnevad Keenia Piiskoppide Konverentsi liikmete allkirjad (25) eesotsas Tema Eminentsi Nairobi peapiiskopi ja Ngongi apostelliku administraatoriga, piiskoppide konverentsi eesistuja kardinal John Njue'ga]

Monday, November 29, 2010

Kondomoonia-skandaali viljad

John Smeaton hoiatas pikaajaliste kibedate viljade eest, mida põhjustab sekularistide ja liberaalide poolt paavsti kondoomi-märkuste ärakasutamine. Sarnast tagajärge on ennustanud mitmed teised kommentaatorid. Üheks viljaks on ka Vene Õigeusu Kiriku esindaja ülempreester Vsevolod Chaplini kinnitus, et "Vene Õigeusu Kiriku sotsiaalpoliitilistes alustes tehakse vahet abortiivsel ja mitte-abortiivsel kontratseptsioonil. Viimast võivad preestrid lubada inimestel kasutada." (Interfax). Seda positsiooni on antud uudises võrreldud paavsti väljaütlemisega kui "sarnasega", mis näitab täiesti ebaadekvaatset arusaama katoliiklikust seksuaalmoraalist.

Üha selgemalt kerkib esile positsioon, et ehkki paavsti märkused ei olnud kuidagi vastuolus Kiriku püsiva õpetusega seksuaalmoraalist, võisid need märkused, ajendades tohutu segaduse ja väärtõlgenduse laine, olla prudentsiaalne viga, st. mitte võttes piisavalt arvesse plahvatusohtlikku olukorda ja eelarvamuslikku kallutatust antud küsimuses. (Vt. näiteks vastukajasid Sandro Magisteri tõlgendusele.) Kahju saaks vähendada ja tuua kogu situatsioonist esile hea vilja, kui magisteriaalsel tasemel esitataks taas selgelt ja kindlalt katoliiklik õpetus seksuaalmoraalist, valgustades ka käesolevas desinformatsioonilaines vääritimõistetud probleeme.

Illustratsiooniks lisan siia isa Timi vahendatud kirjutise Anthony McCarthylt, mille hinnangutega ma küll päriselt ei nõustu, aga mis iseloomustavad viimatinimetatud hoiakut. Isa Timi eeskujul lisan artikli Scribd failina. McCarthy kuulub nende hulka, kes peavad paavsti väljaütlemisi mitte valeks, või taganemiseks katoliiklikust õpetusest, vaid mitte-prudentsiaalseks, st. arvestades maailma olukorda ja meedia ettearvatavat reaktsiooni, mitte väga mõistlikuks:
Pope Condoms (McCarthy)

Kolm aastat Summorum Pontificumi

New Liturgical Movement lehel on katked intervjuust Msgr. Guido Pozzoga, kes on Ecclesia Dei komisjoni sekretär. Rorate Coeli on lubanud avaldada kogu intervjuu teksti, kui see saab tõlgitud saksa originaalist. Intervjuu leidis aset Vatikani raadio saksakeelses saates.

Tüüpiline...

SSPX on avaldanud oma seisukoha seoses paavsti laialdast vastukaja tekitanud märkustega intervjuu-raamatus "Maailma valgus". Ja iseloomulikult on selles paavsti märkusi tõlgendatud samamoodi, kui seda tegi sekulaarne meedia ja liberaalsed kommentaatorid -- kui taganemist Kiriku seni kindlaltpüsinud õpetusest. Lihtsalt hinnang väidetavale "taganemisele" on vastupidine, st. hukkamõistev. See on tüüpiline, kuivõrd sarnasel moel interpreteerib SSPX ka Vatikani II Kirikukogu ühtemoodi modernistitega, andes sellele lihtsalt vastupidise hinnangu. SSPX hinnang on vesi sekulaarse-(post)modernistliku meedia veskile, kes saab sellest kinnitust oma tõlgendusele. Ja kinnitust sai ka minu veendumus, et traditsionalism ja modernism kui ideoloogiad on teineteise peegeldused.

Arroyo, Weigel & Dramatized Bible

Üle 50 min kestvas EWTN saates "The World Over" räägib saatejuht Raymond Arroyo uute kardinalide ametisseseadmisest, autoriseerimata piiskopipühitsusest Hiinas, vestleb George Weigeliga kondomooniast ja tutvustab Uue Testamendi dramatiseeritud audioväljaande projekti (InsightScoop):

William E. May analüüs

Moraaliteoloog William E. May vaatleb Martin Rhonheimeri eelpool osutatud väidet "kondoomi profülaktilise kasutamise kohta abieluaktis":

Is It Intrinsically Evil for Spouses to Use Condoms to Prevent HIV?

On July 10, 2004 the noted philosopher/theologian Martin Rhonheimer published an article in the London Tablet, “The truth about condoms,” in which he argued that spouses could legitimately use condoms as a means of preventing the transmission of HIV.” He argued that such use need not be contraceptive, insofar as the moral object specifying their choice was not necessarily to contracept. I wrote a letter to the editors of the Tablet to reply to Rhonheimer’s essay but it was never printed. I sent Rhonheimer an email in which I included a copy of the letter I had sent to the Tablet. In that letter I maintained that condomistic sex between married persons was not the marital act but a perverted sexual act. In fact in my email I said that the act was a perverted sexual act because a free choice was made “to ejaculate deliberately into a rubber and insert the rubber-covered penis into a vagina,” an act similar to masturbation. In replying to my email Rhonheimer declared: “What really is chosen when a person uses a condom to prevent infection is in my view is not ‘to ejaculate etc…’ but a marital act.” He went on to say that since this act includes no contraceptive choice we can, if we consider the intentional activity involved, conclude that “the unitive and procreative meaning of the act are not separated.” It should be noted that several Cardinals agree with Rhonheimer, among them, Carlo Cardinal Martini, emeritus Archbishop of Milan, Godfrey Cardinal Daneels of Belgium, and Georges Cardinal Cottier, O.P. former theologian to the papacy. It should also be noted that in a talk in June 2005 to African bishops Pope Benedict XVI himself said that the only “fail-safe” way to prevent transmission of HIV/AIDS was abstinence. His exact words are the following: “The Catholic Church has always been at the forefront both in prevention and in treatment of this illness. The traditional teaching of the Church has proven to be the only failsafe way to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. For this reason, ‘the companionship, joy, happiness and peace which Christian marriage and fidelity provide, and the safeguard which chastity gives, must be continuously presented to the faithful, particularly the young’" (Ecclesia in Africa, 116).

What amazed me is that the position presented by Rhonheimer in 2004 had been set forth in 1987 in booklet published by the Catholic Truth Society of England by James Alison, O.P. under the title Catholics and AIDS: Questions and Answers. In fact I had, in June 1988, published an essay in the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Newsletter in which I noted that several theologians argued that the use of condoms for such a purpose is not contraceptive, because the intent of those who use condoms is not to prevent conception but rather to avoid the transmission of a deadly disease. I agreed that such use may not be contraceptive because the object freely chosen need not be to impede procreation. For instance, assume that the husband of an aged married couple contracted HIV through a blood transfusion. His wife was known to be past the age of childbearing so that there would be no reason to use a condom for contraceptive purposes. Why waste money to impede procreation when one realizes that although the behavior in question is the kind of bodily union through which life can be transmitted (it is a procreative kind of act) for factors independent of the agents’ behavior (e.g., sterility) conception will not occur. But, I argued, “condomistic intercourse is, of itself, an ‘unnatural’ or perverted sexual act, and cannot be regarded as a true act of marriage. In my 1988 essay I noted that the Catholic tradition repudiated condomistic intercourse not only because it was usually chosen as a way of contracepting but also because it was against nature. Older theologians judged that in such intercourse the male's semen was deposited in a vas indebitum or "undue vessel" Although this language is not in favor today, the judgment it embodied is, I was convinced, true. When spouses choose to use condoms they change the act they perform from one of true marital union (the marriage act) into a different kind of act. The "language of their bodies," as Pope John Paul II would say, is changed. “In the marital act their bodies speak the language of a mutual giving and receiving, the language of an unreserved and oblative gift. Condomistic intercourse does not speak this language; it mutilates the language of the body, and the act chosen is more similar to masturbation than it is to the true marital act.”

I agree with Rhonheimer that couples using condoms to prevent HIV/AIDS may not be intending to impede procreation, and thus their chosen act is not an act of contraception. Here I appeal to the teaching of St. Thomas and Pope John Paul II to support this matter. Some acts, as acts of nature may be contraceptive, but as St. Thomas and John Paul II make clear, as moral human acts receive their moral species from the act freely chosen by an agent. St. Thomas expresses this briefly in many texts, e.g., in Summa theologiae 2-2, 64, 7, where he declares: “actus autem morales recipient speciem secundum id quod intenditur, non autem ab eo quod est praeter intentionem” [English trans. “Moral acts receive their species according to what is intended and not from what lies outside the scope of one’s intention].A particularly important Thomistic text on this matter, making it crystal clear that the primary moral specification of an act is rooted in the object freely chosen, is the following: Will can be considered in two ways: (1) as intention (secundum quod est intendens), insofar as it bears on an ultimate end; and (2) as choice (secundum quod est eligens), insofar as it bears on a proximate object ordered to that ultimate end. If (1) will is considered in the first way (as intending) the will’s badness suffices to make the act bad, for whatever is done for a bad end is bad. But the goodness of the intending will is not sufficient to make the act good because the act may be bad in itself (actus potest esse de se malus) an act which in no way can be made good. But (2) if the will is considered insofar as it is choosing (Si autem consideretur voluntas secundum quod est eligens) then it is universally true that from the goodness of the will the act is said to be good and from the badness of the will it is said to be bad.

John Paul II made the same point in Veritatis splendor 78. There he declared: The morality of the human act depends primarily and fundamentally on the ”object” rationally chosen by the deliberate will (emphasis in original)….In order to grasp the object of the act which specifies that act morally, it is therefore necessary to place oneself in the perspective of the acting person (emphasis in original). The object of the act of willing is in fact a freely chosen kind of behavior (emphasis added). To the extent that it is in conformity with the order of reason it is the cause of the goodness of the will; it perfects us morally, and disposes us to recognize our ultimate end in the perfect good, primordial love. By the object of a given moral act, then, one cannot mean a process or an event of the merely physical order, to be assessed on the basis of its ability to bring about a given state of affairs in the outside world. Rather, that object is the proximate end of a deliberate decision [=choice] which determines the act of willing on the part of the acting person (emphasis added here. I do so because in this text what Aquinas called the “natural species” of the act, as distinct from its “moral species” John Paul II calls “a process or event of the physical order, to be assessed on is ability to bring about a given state of affairs in the outside world”).

Be that as it may, I now recognize that many couples who use condoms to prevent transmission of HIV/AIDS also intend to contracept. After all, many of these couples are young and fear that if a child were conceived it would be exposed to the threat of a dread disease, and hence they would intend both to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS and the transmission of life. But the major reason why such use of a condom is always seriously evil is the following: if spouses who wish to have intercourse use a condom to prevent HIV transmission, their choice is not to engage in the marital act because their freely chosen act is not unitive—that is, it does not realize, express, and allow spouses to experience their unity as a married couple. To be unitive the act chosen by the spouses must have at least two properties: (1) It must be voluntary, done "humano vere modo"; (2) it must be “actum per se aptum ad prolis generationem, ad quem natura sua ordinatur matrimonium, et quo coniuges fiunt una caro” [English trans. “An act per se apt for generating life, to which marriage is by its very nature ordered”]. The Latin phrase, “per se aptum ad prolis generationem,” can be described as “sexual behavior that, if other necessary conditions are present (e.g., the fertility of both man and woman), would result in conception.” From this it follows that if spouses who are going to have intercourse use a condom to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS, the act is always objectively wrong because they are choosing to engage in behavior that would not result in conception if other necessary conditions were present.

The reason why proceeding with a condom cannot realize one-flesh unity is that one-flesh unity is the oneness of the couple as the different but complementary subjects of the same act, one that can be rightly called a “reproductive” or “procreative” kind of act. Here I need to repeat something affirmed earlier in this paper, namely, that the act consummating marriage is one in which husband and wife, literally becoming “one flesh,” form one procreative unit. It is, in short, a procreative or reproductive type act, and remains this kind of act even if the spouses, because of non-behavioral factors over which they have no control, for example, the temporary or permanent sterility of one of the other, are not able to generate human life in it. Their act remains the kind of bodily act “apt” for generating human life. It is in fact the only kind of bodily act through which human life can be given, for it is only in this kind of act that a man and a woman can exercise their procreative powers; they cannot exercise those powers, as they can their digestive, respiratory, and cognitive powers, as individual men and women, but only as a “mating couple,” in an act in which they in truth do become “one flesh.”

In summary, use of condoms to prevent transmission of a disease is intrinsically evil because the object freely chosen that specifies the moral nature of the act is not the marital act, an act in which husband and wife give and receive one another and become literally “one flesh,” but a different kind of act, one that in no way unites them but rather changes utterly the “language of the body.”

Video pühast Padre Piost

Viide: isa Tim

Pius XI kommentaarid

[N]o reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.
[...]
Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.(Casti Connubii, 54, 56)

John Smeatoni kommentaarid

"Sündimata Laste Kaitsmise Ühingu" direktor John Smeaton kommenteerib paavsti kommentaaride (väär)kajastamist Austen Ivereighi ja Jack Valero poolt:

• The use of condoms is not a moral solution, says Pope Benedict, in widely-misrepresented interview
• Jack Valero and Austen Ivereigh need remedial training in Catholic teaching on sexual ethics

Kateheetiline analüüs

K. Gurries on teinud oma blogis Opuscula hea kateheetilise analüüsi kondoomiküsimuse kohta postituses "Moraalsuse allikad". Tõsi, ta jätab lõpuks lahtiseks küsimuse, kas "kahese toime printsiip" käsitletud juhtumil lõpuks kehtib või mitte, väites vaid, et mitmete moraaliteoloogide hinnangul kehtib. Esitasin talle postituse kommentaaris järgmise küsimuse:

... does the principle of double effect actually apply here? As you quoted: "The Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from--provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever." Here the talk is about (1) "therapeutic means necessary to cure", and (2) "forseeable impediment to procreation" (3) "provided [it] is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever". It seems to me none of these applies to "profylactic use of condom" in marital act. (1) It is not meant to cure neither husband nor wife from any disease; (2) it is not some forseeable, but direct impediment to procreation. Actually the profylactic works insofar only as it prevents semen entering vagina; therefore (3) contraceptive use of condom is direct means for profylactic and cannot be unintended "for any motive whatsoever".

 Ootan huviga tema vastust.

... Mida ei tulnudki :(

28.11 -- Taassõnakuulmise Päev

Samuel kuulutas tänase päeva Taassõnakuulmise Päevaks, ja see juhatab sisse Sõnakuulmise Aasta. Kutsun kõiki väikeseid poisse ja tüdrukuid selle initsiatiiviga ühinema! Miski ütleb mulle, et ma oleksin pidanud selle avalduse kaunilt vormistama ja paluma sellele tema allikirja. Ning koopia sellest pistma käepäraselt põue. Igaks-juhuks. Need mõned korrad, kui täna on olnud vajadust selle päeva tähtsust meelde tuletada, on igatahes väga efektiivselt mõjunud.

PS. Ning mis väga oluline: see sobib suurepäraselt Advendi ja uue kirikuaasta alguse intentsiooniks mullegi, eee.. tegelikult tahtsin kirjutada "teistelegi".
Head Uut Kirikuaastat!

Paavsti vigiili-jutlusest

Blogis Rorate Coeli on tõlkekatke paavsti poolt eilsel vigiilil tärkava inimelu eest peetud itaaliakeelsest jutlusest:

Believing in Jesus Christ also means having a new outlook on man, a look of trust and hope. Moreover, experience itself and reason show that the human being is a subject capable of discernment, self-conscious and free, unique and irreplaceable, the summit of all earthly things, that must be recognized in his innate value and always accepted with respect and love. He has the right not to be treated as an object of possession or something to manipulate at will, not to be reduced to a mere instrument for the benefit of others and their interests. The human being is a good in and of himself and his integral development should always be sought. Love for all, if it is sincere, naturally tends to become a preferential attention to the weakest and poorest. In this vein we find the Church's concern for the unborn, the most fragile, the most threatened by the selfishness of adults and the darkening of consciences. The Church continually reiterates what was declared by the Second Vatican Council against abortion and all violations of unborn life: 'from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care'.

... With regard to the embryo in the womb, science itself highlights its autonomy capable of interaction with the mother, the coordination of biological processes, the continuity of development, the growing complexity of the organism. This is not an accumulation of biological material, but a new living being, dynamic and wonderfully ordered, a new unique human being. So was Jesus in Mary's womb, so it was for all of us in our mother’s womb…there is no reason not to consider him a person from conception.

Benedict XVI

Vooruslik patt

Paavsti kondoomi-märkuste arutelu kontekstis katoliiklikus blogosfääris ilmnevad üllataval kombel erinevad arusaamad ka nende vaadetes, kes muudes Kiriku elu puudutavates küsimustes on enam-vähem ühte meelt. Lahkarusaamad keskenduvad küsimuse ümber, kas kondoomi kasutamine väärastunud seksuaalakti puhul, kui seda tehakse kavatsusega vältida kaasosalise nakatumist HI-viirusega, on moraalselt hea tegu. Ühed leiavad, et jah, see on hea tegu, olgugi minimaalne; teised aga, et ehkki kavatsus kaasosalist hukutavast tagajärjest säästa on hea, ei ole kondoomi kasutamine antud juhul ometi veel moraalselt hea tegu, vaid hea kavatsuse ebaadekvaatne realiseerimine. Moraalne lahendus oleks loobumine väärastunud seksuaalsest praktikast. Kondoomi kasutamine küll modifitseerib seda praktikat, aga ei muuda selle teo põhimõttelist iseloomu, tegemist on endiselt väärastunud seksuaalse käitumisega, ehkki potentsiaalselt väiksema laastava mõjuga ning selle tõttu väiksema, aga siiski raske kurjaga. Viimast arusaama toetab paavsti osutus, et kondoomi kasutamise näol ei ole tegemist tõelise moraalse lahendusega; tõeline lahendus saab olla vaid seksuaalsuse humaniseerimine, st. selle asetamine adekvaatsesse konteksti -- ustavasse ja armastavasse abiellu mehe ja naise vahel. Ent sedavõrd, kuivõrd inimesed on kinni teatud harjumuslikes praktikates ja tõekspidamistes, ei pruugi see üleminek adekvaatsele lahendusele olla kaugeltki kiire ja kerge. Patustaja sügav ja täielik pöördumine korrapealt on moraalne ime. Tavaliselt toimub pöördumine pikaajalise järkjärgulise protsessi kaudu, mille käigus inimene teadvustab samm-sammult oma väärastunud olukorra aspekte ja püüab nendega võidelda, võib-olla paljude tagasilangemistega. Alles püsiva pingutuse tulemusena ja Jumala armu kaasabil võib ta lõpuks vabaneda oma väljakujunenud ja harjumuseks saanud tegevusmustritest, mida võiks nimetada ka patu ahelateks. Ja sellise protsessi kontekstis saab tolereerida neid osalisi, ebaadekvaatseid lahendusi, ent ainult juhul kui need osutavad vähemalt püüdlusele hea suunas, olgugi veel ebaadekvaatsele. Kuna see on alati individuaalne hinnang konkreetse inimese olukorrale, siis ei saa see olla üldiseks soovituseks, a la "kõik, kes elavad liiderlikku elu, peaksid kasutama kondoome, sest olgugi teie eluviis sobimatu, on see vähim moraalselt  hea tegu, mis te saate teha." See oleks valetamine, kuna kondoomi kasutamine poleks iseseisev moraalselt hea tegu, vaid osa liiderlikust eluviisist. Ent individuaalsetel juhtudel, nagu öeldud, võib see olla märgiks südametunnistuse liigutamisest, mida tuleks hoida ja püüda turgutada ning samas puhastada ja suunata tõeliselt inimlike valikute poole. Põhjalikumalt kirjutab moraalse ja episteemilise erinevusest Dr. Steven A. Long oma blogis. 

Esimene grupp (Damian Thompson, Sandro Magister, John Allen Jr), need, kes leiavad, et kondoomi kasutamine antud olukorras on minimaalne moraalselt hea tegu, teevad siit kiire ülemineku juba abielumoraali valda ja väidavad, et kaudselt on paavsti märkuste taga aimata ka heakskiitu seisukohale, et kui üks abikaasadest on HIV-positiivne, siis on abikaasa nakatumise vältimiseks õigustatud kondoomi kasutamine ka abikaasade vahelises seksuaalsuhtes, kuna sellisel juhul polevat tegu kontratseptsiooniga, vaid ohtliku nakkuse vältimisega. Huvitav on, et autoriteedina viidatakse seejuures Opus Dei preestrile, moraaliteoloog Martin Rhonheimerile, Püha Risti Ülikooli professorile, täpsemalt tema artiklile ajakirjas The Tablet. Mitmete oluliste punktide kõrval, millega võib täielikult nõustuda, kirjutab ta:

The norm about contraception applies without exception; the contraceptive choice is intrinsically evil. But it obviously applies only to contraceptive acts, as defined by Humanae Vitae, which embody a contraceptive choice. Not every act in which a device is used which from a purely physical point of view is "contraceptive", is from a moral point of view a contraceptive act falling under the norm taught by Humanae Vitae.

Equally, a married man who is HIV-infected and uses the condom to protect his wife from infection is not acting to render procreation impossible, but to prevent infection. If conception is prevented, this will be an "unintentional" side-effect and will not therefore shape the moral meaning of the act as a contraceptive act.

Esimeses lõigus peab ta silmas mõningaid artiklis eespool toodud näiteid, kus "kontratseptiivi" kasutamine on ilmselgelt mitte-kontratseptiivse iseloomuga, kuna ei toimu potentsiaalselt viljaka suguühte kontekstis, näiteks homode puhul või ovulatsiooni pärssiva hormoontableti võtmine menstruatsiooni allasurumiseks enne võistlusi. Ent teises lõigus laiendab ta seda abielusisesele seksuaalaktile, kus see ilmselgelt on kontratseptiivse toimega, ehkki esmane intentsioon on nakatamise vältimine. Jääb arusaamatuks, miks juhatab Rhonheimer selle näite sisse sõnaga "Equally", kuigi see vajaks põhjalikku selgitust, kuidas kontratseptiivi kasutamine abieluakti viljatuksmuutmisel "võrdub" esimestes näidetes osutatud kontratseptiivi kasutamisega mitte-kontratseptiivsel moel.

Asi on seda imelikum, et oma varasemas artiklis kaitses Rhonheimer põhjalikult ja hoolikalt abieluakti kahe tähenduse -- ühendava ja eluandva -- lahutamatut ühtsust. Tõsi, aasta oli siis 1989. Inimesed muutuvad, ja sageli ka nende tõekspidamised. Paavst Paulus VI määratles Humanae Vitaes, millele Rhonheimer ülaltoodud lõigus viitab, kontratseptsiooni järgmiselt:

... mistahes tegu, mis abieluakti ootusel, teostamisel või selle loomulike tagajärgede arengul on suunatud eesmärgina või vahendina elu edasiandmise takistamisele.

Sama määratlust kasutab ka Katoliku Kiriku Katekismus (2370), lisades, et see on "sisimalt kuri" (intrinsically evil). See määratlus ütleb sõnaselgelt, et kontratseptsiooniga on tegemist nii juhul, kui elu edasiandmise takistamine on eesmärgiks, kui ka juhul, kui see on vahendiks, nagu Rhonheimeri abikaasade-näites. Seal on tegemist ju mitte lihtsalt ja puhtalt nakatamise vältimisega, vaid seksuaalaktiga, mis on muudetud kondoomi kasutamise teel viljatuks, et vältida abikaasa nakatumist, st. kontratseptiivi kasutatakse vahendina.

Veel tasub meelde tuletada Vatikani II Kirikukogu konstitutsiooni Gaudium et Spes:

"... when there is a question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspect of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives. It must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his or her acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely practiced" (No. 51).

Niisiis ei sõltu teo moraalsus ainuüksi siirastest kavatsustest või motiivide hindamisest, vaid vajab objektiivsemaid kriteeriume. Aga tundub, et Rhonheimeril neid pakkuda ei ole.

Lõpetuseks Rhonheimeri enda kokkuvõte Humanae Vitae õpetusest 1989.a. artiklis:

Humanae Vitae, now, teaches four things:

• First that human sexuality has two fundamental meanings: the meaning of loving union of the spouses ('unitive meaning') and the meaning of transmission of human life ('procreative meaning').
• Secondly, that according to the design of the Creator these two meanings are inseparably connected.
• Thirdly, that man on his own initiative may not break this connection. 
• And fourthly, Humanae Vitae affirms that by contraception the connection of these two meanings in fact is broken.

Vigiilist

Üle maailma valmistutakse laupäevaõhtuseks vigiiliks tärkava inimelu eest (LifeSiteNews). Tallinnas toimub vigiil kuuldavasti katedraalis ja Pirita kloostris. Näib, et katedraalis võib vigiil alata väljakuulutatust varem, kohe pärast õhtust Missat, st kusagil 18.45 paiku. Ja arvatavasti ei toimu vesprit. Aga need on kontrollimata andmed. Pirital algavat vigiil kell 23.

Salve Rehiina

Viide: Isa Z

Asia Bibi vabastati

Zeniti andmetel on Pakistani naine nimega Asia Bibi, kes mõisteti poomissurma Muhamedi solvamise eest, vabastatud, ent peab end vigilantide kättemaksu eest varjama.

Vatikani kommünikee seoses piiskopi-ordinatsiooniga Hiinas

VATICAN CITY, 24 NOV 2010 (VIS) - Püha Tooli pressiteenistus andis täna välja kommünikee seoses piiskopi-ordinatsiooniga Chengdes, Hebei provintsis Hiinas

  "With regard to the episcopal ordination of Fr. Joseph Guo Jincai, which took place last Saturday 20 November, information has been gathered about what happened and it is now possible to state clearly the following.

  "(1) The Holy Father received the news with deep regret, because the abovementioned episcopal ordination was conferred without the apostolic mandate and, therefore, constitutes a painful wound upon ecclesial communion and a grave violation of Catholic discipline (cf. Letter of Benedict XVI to the Church in China, 2007, n. 9).

  "(2) It is known that, in recent days, various bishops were subjected to pressures and restrictions on their freedom of movement, with the aim of forcing them to participate and confer the episcopal ordination. Such constraints, carried out by Chinese government and security authorities, constitute a grave violation of freedom of religion and conscience. The Holy See intends to carry out a detailed evaluation of what has happened, including consideration of the aspect of validity and the canonical position of the bishops involved.

  "(3) In any case, this has painful repercussions, in the first case, for Fr. Joseph Guo Jincai who, because of this episcopal ordination, finds himself in a most serious canonical condition before the Church in China and the universal Church, exposing himself also to the severe sanctions envisaged, in particular, by canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law.

  "(4) This ordination not only does not contribute to the good of the Catholics of Chengde, but places them in a very delicate and difficult condition, also from the canonical point of view, and humiliates them, because the Chinese civil authorities wish to impose on them a pastor who is not in full communion, either with the Holy Father or with the other bishops throughout the world.

  "(5) Several times, during this current year, the Holy See has communicated clearly to the Chinese authorities its opposition to the episcopal ordination of Fr. Joseph Guo Jincai. In spite of this, the said authorities decided to proceed unilaterally, to the detriment of the atmosphere of respect that had been created with great effort with the Holy See and with the Catholic Church through the recent episcopal ordinations. This claim to place themselves above the bishops and to guide the life of the ecclesial community does not correspond to Catholic doctrine; it offends the Holy Father, the Church in China and the universal Church, and further complicates the present pastoral difficulties.

  "(6) Pope Benedict XVI, in the above-mentioned Letter of 2007, expressed the Holy See's willingness to engage in a respectful and constructive dialogue with the authorities of the People's Republic of China, with the aim of overcoming the difficulties and normalising relations. In reaffirming this willingness, the Holy See notes with regret that the authorities allow the leadership of the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, under the influence of Mr. Liu Bainian, to adopt attitudes that gravely damage the Catholic Church and hamper the aforesaid dialogue.

  "(7) The Catholics of the entire world are following with particular attention the troubled journey of the Church in China: the spiritual solidarity with which they accompany the vicissitudes of their Chinese brothers and sisters becomes a fervent prayer to the Lord of history, so that He may be close to them, increase their hope and fortitude, and give them consolation in moments of trial".

Teateid kondomoonia-rindelt

Toon mõned viited minu arvates olulistele artiklitele seoses meediaskandaaliga paavsti märkuste üle kondoomide kasutamise osas:

• Phil Lawler (Catholic Culture): The Vatican newspaper has betrayed the Pope 
• Jeffrey Mirus (Catholic Culture): The Pope, the Condom, and the Elephant
• Hilary White (LifeSiteNews): Catholics and journalists call for heads to roll at L’Osservatore Romano
• Anita S. Bourdin (Zenit): Seewald's Take: Benedict XVI Misunderstood by Many
• Zenit: Prelates Worldwide Defend Pope's Comments

Kardinal Burke'i kommentaar

Äsja kardinaliseisusse tõstetud peaiiskop Raymond Burke, Vatikani viimase astme kohtu prefekt, kommenteerib paavsti äsjailmunud raamatut ja selle ümber tõusnud kondomoonia-lärmi.

Esitleti "Maailma valgust"

Juba enne ilmumist ülemaailmset kõmu tekitanud "Maailma valgust", paavsti uut intervjuuraamatut, esitleti täna Vatikani pressiteenistuses:

Isa Tim Finigani kondomoonia-kommentaarid

Isa Tim Finigan on postitanud terve seeria kommentaare paavsti hiljuti meedia tähelepanu keskmesse tõusnud märkuste kohta:

• Pope/condoms I -- Can we disagree?
• Pope/condoms II -- some Catholic reactions
• Pope/condoms III -- division at the Vatican
• Pope/condoms IV -- "Do you think that's wise, Sir?"

Üleskutse solidaarsusele Kirikuga Iraagis

Kirkuki peapiiskop Msgr. Louis Sako saatis 20. novembril uudisteagentuuri AsiaNews kaudu üleskutse Itaalia ja kogu Lääne kristlastele, mitte jätta Iraagi kirikut üksi nende katsumuse tunnil. 21. novembril toimus Itaalias piiskoppide konverentsi üleskutsel palvepäev Iraagi kristlaste ja religioosse vabaduse eest, millega ühines ka paavst, väljendades oma toetust Iraagi kristlastele pühapäevase Angeluse järel. Ent 22. novembril tapeti Mosulis taas kaks kristlast (AsiaNews). Araabia-kristlased Pühal Maal on aga esitanud üleskutse kanoniseerida 31. oktoobri Baghdadi veresauna ohvrid. Järgneb tõlge Kirkuki peakiiskopi üleskutsest:

Meie rahvas Iraagis on täna tagakiusatud, teda ähvardatakse ja ta teeb läbi martüüriumi. 2005. aastast alates on tapetud 900 kristlast, nende seas viis preestrit ja Mosuli peapiiskop, rünnatud on 52 kirikut. Paljud perekonnad on olnud sunnitud lahkuma oma kodudest ja põgenema, et päästa oma lapsi ja oma kristlikku usku.

Me oleme valmis tegema kõike, et säilitada oma usku ja oma ustavust Kristusele. Me teame, et martüürium on meie Kiriku karisma. See annabki meile jõudu jääda ja vastu pidada.

Meie katsumus on raske ja näib pikk. Baghdadis 31. oktoobril Meie Pääste Jumalaema katedraalis asetleidnud veresaun on meid sügavalt vapustanud.

Me oleme kaotamas kannatust, aga mitte usku ja lootust. Me vajame oma Läänes elavate kristlike vendade ja õdede palveid, moraalset toetust ja sõprust. Nende toetuse ja solidaarsuseta tunneme end üksi ja isoleerituna. Ärge jätke meid üksi sellel katsumuse tunnil. Meie teekond saab jätkuda teie abil ja teie palvete toel.

Dokument "Summorum Pontificumi" rakendamisest

Isa Z vahendab Kathnews uudist, et veel enne Jõulu on oodata dokumenti "Summorum Pontificumi" rakendamise kohta.

Veel väljavõtteid "Maailma valgusest"

InsightScoop

Prof. Janet Smithi intervjuust

Lisaks juba eespool viidatud selgitusele on prof Janet Smith andnud interjuu Zenitile, milles ta selgitab kondoomide kasutamise problemaatikat homoseksuaalsetes suhetes:

[...] He is not speaking to the morality of the use of a condom, but to something that may be true about the psychological state of those who use them. If such individuals are using condoms to avoid harming another, they may eventually realize that sexual acts between members of the same sex are inherently harmful since they are not in accord with human nature.

The Holy Father does not in any way think the use of condoms is a part of the solution to reducing the risk of AIDs. As he explicitly states, the true solution involves "humanizing sexuality."

Anyone having sex that threatens to transmit HIV needs to grow in moral discernment. This is why Benedict focused on a "first step" in moral growth.

The Church is always going to be focused on moving people away from immoral acts towards love of Jesus, virtue, and holiness. We can say that the Holy Father clearly did not want to make a point about condoms, but wants to talk about growth in a moral sense, which should be a growth towards Jesus.

Q: So is the Holy Father saying it is morally good for male prostitutes to use condoms?

Smith: The Holy Father is not articulating a teaching of the Church about whether or not the use of a condom reduces the amount of evil in a homosexual sexual act that threatens to transmit HIV.

The Church has no formal teaching about how to reduce the evil of intrinsically immoral action. We must note that what is intrinsically wrong in a homosexual sexual act in which a condom is used is not the moral wrong of contraception but the homosexual act itself.

In the case of homosexual sexual activity, a condom does not act as a contraceptive; it is not possible for homosexuals to contracept since their sexual activity has no procreative power that can be thwarted.

But the Holy Father is not making a point about whether the use of a condom is contraceptive or even whether it reduces the evil of a homosexual sexual act; again, he is speaking about the psychological state of some who might use condoms. The intention behind the use of the condom (the desire not to harm another) may indicate some growth in a sense of moral responsibility.
In "Familiaris Consortio (On the Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World)," John Paul II spoke of the need for conversion, which often proceeds by gradual steps:

"To the injustice originating from sin ... we must all set ourselves in opposition through a conversion of mind and heart, following Christ Crucified by denying our own selfishness: such a conversion cannot fail to have a beneficial and renewing influence even on the structures of society.

"What is needed is a continuous, permanent conversion which, while requiring an interior detachment from every evil and an adherence to good in its fullness, is brought about concretely in steps which lead us ever forward. Thus a dynamic process develops, one which advances gradually with the progressive integration of the gifts of God and the demands of His definitive and absolute love in the entire personal and social life of man. (9)"

Christ himself, of course, called for a turning away from sin. That is what the Holy Father is advocating here; not a turn towards condoms. Conversion, not condoms!

Q: Would it be proper to conclude that the Holy Father would support the distribution of condoms to male prostitutes?

Smith: Nothing he says here indicates that he would. Public programs of distribution of condoms run the risk of conveying approval for homosexual sexual acts.

The task of the Church is to call individuals to conversion and to moral behavior; it is to help them understand the meaning and purpose of sexuality and to help them come to know Christ, who will provide the healing and graces that enable us to live in accord with the meaning and purpose of sexuality.

Q: Is Pope Benedict indicating that heterosexuals who have HIV could reduce the wrongness of their acts by using condoms?

Smith: No. In his second answer he says that the Church does not find condoms to be a "real or moral solution." That means the Church does not find condoms either to be moral or an effective way of fighting the transmission of HIV. As the Holy Father indicates in his fuller answer, the most effective portion of programs designed to reduce the transmission of HIV are calls to abstinence and fidelity.

The Holy Father, again, is saying that the intention to reduce the transmission of any infection is a "first step" in a movement towards a more human way of living sexuality. That more human way would be to do nothing that threatens to harm one's sexual partner, who should be one's beloved spouse. For an individual with HIV to have sexual intercourse with or without a condom is to risk transmitting a lethal disease.

An analogy: If someone was going to rob a bank and was determined to use a gun, it would better for that person to use a gun that had no bullets in it. It would reduce the likelihood of fatal injuries. But it is not the task of the Church to instruct potential bank robbers how to rob banks more safely and certainly not the task of the Church to support programs of providing potential bank robbers with guns that could not use bullets.

Nonetheless, the intent of a bank robber to rob a bank in a way that is safer for the employees and customers of the bank may indicate an element of moral responsibility that could be a step towards eventual understanding of the immorality of bank robbing.

George Weigel meedia kondomomaaniast

George Weigel, paavst Johannes Paulus II autoriteetse biograafia autor, kes kirjutas ka eessõna paavst Benedictus XVI uuele intervjuuraamatule "Maailma valgus", selgitab sekularistliku meedia väärarusaamu äsjase segaduse taustal ühe lõigu osas paavsti intervjuust, kus ta vastab küsimusele Kiriku suhtumise kohta kondoomide kasutamisse. Paavsti tegeliku teksti ja prof. Janet Smithi selgituse tutvustamise järel sellele, kirjutab Weigel:

The Times story was hardly the worst of the maelstrom of media misrepresentation, which was initiated by the once-authoritative Associated Press. This latest example of pack journalism was a disservice in itself, and it also highlighted several false assumptions that continually bedevil coverage of the Catholic Church and the Vatican and one specific media obsession that is, to be brutally frank, lethal in its consequences.

The first false assumption beneath the latest round of media condomania is that the Church’s settled teaching on sexual morality is a policy or a position that can change, as tax rates can be changed or one’s position on whether India should be a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council can change. To be sure, the theological articulation of the Catholic ethic of sexual love has been refined over centuries; it has come to an interesting point of explication in recent years in John Paul II’s “theology of the body.” But it has not changed and it will not change because it cannot be changed. And it cannot change or be changed because the Catholic ethic of sexual love is an expression of fundamental moral truths that can be known by reason and are illuminated by revelation.

The second false assumption beneath the condom story is that all papal statements of whatever sort are equal, such that an interview is an exercise of the papal teaching magisterium. That wasn’t true of John Paul II’s international bestseller, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, in which the late pope replied to questions posed by Italian journalist Vittorio Messori. It wasn’t true of the first volume of Benedict XVI’s Jesus of Nazareth, in which the pope made clear at the outset that he was speaking personally as a theologian and biblical scholar, not as the authoritative teacher of the Church. And it isn’t true of Light of the World. Reporters who insist on parsing every papal utterance as if each were equally authoritative — and who often do so in pursuit of a gotcha moment — do no good service to their readers.

The third false assumption was a “historic change” of Catholic teaching of the sort that was misreported to have taken place would be announced through the medium of an interview. It will perhaps come as a blow to the self-esteem of the fourth estate to recognize an elementary fact of Catholic life, but the truth of the matter is that no pope with his wits about him would use the vehicle of an interview with a journalist to discuss a new initiative, lay out a pastoral program, or explicate a development of doctrine. Light of the World is chock-full of interesting material, explaining this or that facet of Catholic faith, reflecting on the successes, challenges, and communications errors of the pontificate to date, even pondering personal questions such as the possibility of a papal retirement. But such interviews never are going to be used for the most serious exercises of papal authority.

As for the media obsession, it is, of course, with the notion of Salvation by Latex. Shortly after the pope’s visit to Africa, where he was hammered by the press for alleged insensitivity to AIDS victims because of his reiteration of the Catholic sexual ethic, a distinguished student of these matters, Dr. Edward Green, published an op-ed piece in the Washington Post with the striking title, “The Pope May Be Right.” Green, who is not a Catholic, made a powerful case that abstinence outside of marriage and fidelity within marriage are, empirically, the genuine AIDS-preventers. He was right, according to every thorough study of this terrible plague. But you would never know that by the coverage of Catholics and condoms — just as you would likely never learn that, as a global institution, the Catholic Church serves more AIDS sufferers than any other similarly situated community.

What humane purpose is served by this media obsession with condoms? What happens to the press’s vaunted willingness to challenge conventional wisdom when the issue at hand is anything touching on sexual license? It seems to disappear. And one fears that a lot of people are seriously hurt — and die — as at least an indirect result. Consciences indeed need to be examined in the matter of condoms, Catholics, and AIDS. But the consciences in question are those of the press.

Veel paavsti uuest raamatust

George Weigeli eessõna raamatule.
Peapiiskop  Chaput' kommentaar raamatule ja selle arvatavale retseptsioonile.
Chiesa lehel tõlge L'Osservatores avaldatud lõikudest.

Uute kardinalide ametisseseadmine

Video

Veel väljavõtteid paavsti uuest intervjuuraamatust

InsightScoop:

• "Popes Do Not Fall From the Sky" (Excerpt from ch. 1 of "Light of the World")
• "Time For Conversion" (an excerpt from ch. 6 of "Light of the World")
• "The Return of Jesus Christ" (an excerpt from ch. 17 of "Light of the World")

i. Lombardi pressiteade kondoomide küsimuses

John Allen Jr. on tõlkinud itaalia keelest inglise keelde Vatikani Informatsiooniteenistuse pressiteate maailmas laineid tekitanud teate kohta, justkui oleks paavst muutnud Kiriku suhtumist kondoomide kasutamisse (minu rõhutused):

At the end of chapter ten [note: in the English edition, chapter eleven] of the book Light of the World, the pope responds to two questions about the struggle against AIDS and the use of condoms, questions which refer back to the discussons which followed some words spoken by the pope on the subject in the course of his trip to Africa in 2009.

The pope clearly reaffirms that he had not meant [in 2009] to take a position on the problem of condoms in general, but simply wanted to affirm strongly that the problem of AIDS cannot be resolved solely with the distribution of condoms, because much more has to be done: prevention, education, help, council, and staying close to the people – both so they don’t become sick, but also when they are sick.

The pope observed that even in non-ecclesial environments, there’s a similar awareness, such as that of the so-called “ABC” approach (abstinence – be faithful – condoms), in which the first two elements (abstinence and fidelity) are far more determinative and fundamental for the struggle against AIDS. Meanwhile the condom, in the final analysis, seems like a shortcut when the other two elements are missing. It must be clear, therefore, that condoms are not the solution to the problem.

The pope then broadens the focus, insisting that to concentrate solely on condoms is tantamount to making sexuality into something banal, losing its meaning as an expression of love between persons, and turning it into a sort of “drug.” Struggling against the banalization of sexuality is “part of a great effort to see that sexuality is positively understood, and can exercise its positive effect on the human person in his or her totality.”

In the light of this ample and profound vision of human sexuality, and its modern challenges, the pope reaffirms that “naturally the church does not consider condoms as the authentic and moral solution” to the problem of AIDS.

Thus the pope is not reforming or changing the teaching of the church, but reaffirming it by placing it in the context of the value and the dignity of human sexuality as an expression of love and responsibility.

At the same time, the pope considers an exceptional situation in which the exercise of sexuality respresents a true risk to the life of another. In that case, the pope does not morally justify the disordered exercise of sexuality, but holds that the use of a condom in order to diminish the threat of infection is “a first assumption of responsibility,” and “a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality,” rather than not using a condom and exposing the other person to a threat to their life.

In that sense, the reasoning of the pope certainly cannot be defined as a revolutionary shift. Numerous moral theologians and authoritative ecclesiastical personalities have sustained, and still sustain, similar positions. Nevertheless, it’s true that until now they have not been heard with such clarity from the mouth of the pope, even if it’s in a colloquial rather than magisterial form.

Benedict XVI therefore courageously gives us an important contribution of clarification and deepening on a question that has long been debated. It’s an original contribution, because on the one hand it remains faithful to moral principles and demonstrates lucidity in rejecting “faith in condoms” as an illusory path; on the other hand, it shows a comprehensive and far-sighted vision, attentive to discovering the small steps – even if they’re only initial and still confused – of a humanity often spiritually and culturally impoverished, towards a more human and responsible exercise of sexuality.

Soovil on suured silmad

... ehk "parem" pole tingimata "hea"

Kas paavst "pehmendas" Katoliku Kiriku seisukohta kondoomide kasutamise osas?

Eile lahvatas maailma ajakirjanduses "pommuudis" nagu oleks paavst Benedictus XVI "pehmendanud" Katoliku Kiriku suhtumist kondoomide kasutamisse, öeldes, et teatud juhtudel olevat see "vastuvõetav" (BBC). Ka Eestis haarati innukalt "uudisest" kinni, näidates seda BBC eeskujul Kiriku positsiooni "pehmenemisena". Näiteks Postimees Online väitel omistatakse peatselt ilmuvas intervjuuraamatus "paavstile sõnad, et kondoomi kasutamine on lubatud, kui see aitab HI-viirusega nakatumist vältida". ERR teatel  rääkis paavst, et "kondoomi kasutamine oleks sallitav eriti siis, kui see aitab vähendada HI-viirusega nakatumise ohtu. Ta on esimene paavst, kes pehmendab katoliku kiriku ranget keeldu rasestumisvastaste vahendite kasutamisele". Õhtuleht vahendab, et paavst "ütleb, et vahel on kondoomi kasutamine õigustatud, sest see võib vähenda HI-viirusesse nakatumise ohtu". DELFI pealkirjastab oma sõnumi nii: "Paavst: mõnikord on kondoomid lubatud".

Tõepoolest, soovil on suured silmad. Tegelikult ei väitnud paavst oma intervjuus, nagu oleks kondoomide kasutamine "vastuvõetav", "lubatud", "õigustatud" või "sallitav", kui see aitab vähendada HI-viirusesse nakatumise ohtu. Ta ütles, et kondoomide kasutamine ei ole "tõeline moraalne lahendus", ent võib teatud juhtudel, kui seksuaalne käitumine on veelgi enam labastatud, "olla esimeseks sammuks liikumisel teisele poole, inimlikuma seksuaalsuse suunas". St. mitte, et see oleks teatud juhtudel inimlik seksuaalsuse realiseerimene, vaid võib olla mõningatel ekstreemsetel juhtudel esimeseks sammuks selle poole. Millised need teatud juhud on? Paavst tõi näiteks mees-prostituudid, kes, andes enesele aru, et nad kannavad edasi HI-viirust, kasutavad kondoome kavatsusega viiruse edasikandmist takistada. Kas selle näitega kiitis paavst heaks kondoomide kasutamise? Nagu osutas professor Janet Smith, on siin tegemist traditsioonilise katoliikliku õpetusega, mis tunnistab, et pöördumine pahedest, seksuaalsest kõlvatusest sealhulgas, toimub reeglina pideva, järk-järgulise protsessina, ning näite "mees-prostituudi" (milles ta nägi viidet homoseksuaalsele prostitutsioonile) näol võib olla tegemist esimese sammuga sellel pöördumise teel. Teisisõnu, paavst räägib siin eelkõige pöördumisest, mitte preservatiividest, või kondoomide kasutamise lubatavusest.

Sellega ei pehmendanud ta karvavõrdki katoliiklikku seisukohta kondoomide kasutamise osas. Vastupidi, ta kinnitas traditsioonilist pastoraalset praktikat, mille kohaselt patust pöördumine toimub tavaliselt kurja järk-järgulise piiramise kaudu, kuni sellest lõpuks lahtiütlemiseni. Teiseks, isegi kui ta oleks väitnud midagi, mida tõepoolest saaks tõlgendada mingi "pehmema positsioonina", ei muudaks see katoliiklikku õpetust seksuaalsusest, kontratseptiivide ja sh. kondoomide kasutamisest, sest Kiriku doktriini ei formuleerita intervjuude käigus ajakirjanikele. Küll aga formuleerivad sekulaarse ajakirjanduse "magisteeriumi" BBC, New York Times ja muud liberaalse sekulaarse meedia "magisteriaalsed organid". Oma rõhuasetuse kinnituseks tsiteerib BBC Austen Ivereighi, kes satub olema liberalistliku suunaga katoliiklike ajakirjade "America" ja "The Tablet" kaastöötaja: "Kui kavatsus on pigem vältida viiruse edasikandmist, kui rasestumist, ütleksid moraaliteoloogid, et see on erineva moraalse kvalifikatsiooniga (different moral order)". Kui see "erinev moraalne kvalifikatsioon" peaks tähendama, et selline intentsioon muudab kondoomi kasutamise "lubatuks",  "õigustatuks" või "sallitavaks", siis oleks küll pidanud lisama, et seda ütleksid vaid magisteriaalsest katoliiklikust moraaliteoloogiast hälbivad liberalistlikud teoloogid. Nendelt leiab toetust rahvusvahelise poliiteliidi "fikseeritus kondoomidele", millele paavst osutab. See seineb kondoomide üldise kasutamise pidamist lahenduseks AIDSi-probleemile.

Selle fiksatsiooni kohta ütles Benedictus XVI kõne all olevas intervjuus: "fikseeritus kondoomidele eeldab seksuaalsuse labastamist, mis on aga just see ohtlik allikas suhtumisele, mis ei näe enam seksuaalsuses armastuse väljendust, vaid teatud liiki narkootikumi, mida inimesed endile jagavad. Seetõttu on võitlus seksuaalsuse labastamise vastu ühtlasi ka osaks võitlusest selle eest, et seksuaalsust käsitataks positiivse väärtusena ning lastaks sellel positiivselt mõjuda inimese terviklikule olemisele."

Mitmed väljaanded tuletasid meelde ka möödunud aastal ajakirjanduses pahameeletormi tekitanud paavsti märkust kondoomide kohta lennukis teel Kameruni antud intervjuu ajal. Paraku ei pidanud ükski neist vajalikuks mainida paavsti vastust toonasele kriitikale, millega täna vaatluse all olev intervjuu just algabki. Paavst ütles:

Meediakajastus ignoreeris täielikult kogu ülejäänud Aafrika-reisi üheainsa väljaütlemise tõttu. Keegi küsis minult, miks Katoliku Kirik on omaks võtnud ebarealistliku ja ebaeffektiivse positsiooni AIDSi küsimuses. Sel hetkel tundsin tõepoolest, et mind provotseeritakse, sest Kirik teeb enam kui kestahes teine. Ja ma jään selle kinnituse juurde. Sest Kirik on ainus institutsioon, mis toetab inimesi lähedaselt ja konkreetselt, preventsiooni, harimise, abi, nõuandmise ja kaasaskäimisega. Ning kuna ta ei jää kellegi järel teiseks hoolitsedes nii paljude AIDSi-ohvrite eest, eriti AIDSi-haigete laste eest.

Mul oli võimalus külastada üht nendest hooldusasutustest ja kõneleda patsientidega. See oli tõeline vastus: Kirik teeb rohkem kui keegi teine, sest ta ei räägi ajalehtede tribüünilt, vaid abistab oma õdesid ja vendi seal, kus nad tõepoolest kannatavad. Oma märkustes ei esitanud ma üldist väidet kondoomide küsimuses, vaid ütlesin lihtsalt -- ja see põhjustaski sellise suure haavumise --, et me ei saa lahendada seda probleemi kondoomide jagamise teel. Vaja on teha palju enam. Me peame seisma ligi inimestele, me peame neid juhatama ja abistama; ning me peame seda tegema nii enne kui pärast seda, kui nad haigestuvad.

Ent liberalistliku meedia ideoloogide "lahendus" näib olevat risti vastupidine -- pakkuda oma abstraktselt tribüünilt lihtsat lahendust: ujutada maailm üle kondoomidega (seeläbi probleemi tegelikult süvendades seksuaalsuse labastamise kaudu) ... ja naeruvääristada Kirikut, kes tegelikult ülemaailmselt kõige rohkem AIDSi-ohvritest hoolib ja nende eest hoolitseb.