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.