Fr. Lombardi’s Press Statement & Benedict’s Implicit Challenge

In case you’re interested in Fr. Lombardi’s formal statement from the press conference yesterday, here’s a link to the Italian text.

Specifically:

“Alla luce di questa visione ampia e profonda della sessualità umana e della sua problematica odierna, il Papa riafferma che “naturalmente la Chiesa non considera i profilattici come la soluzione autentica e morale” del problema dell’AIDS.

Con ciò il Papa non riforma o cambia l’insegnamento della Chiesa, ma lo riafferma mettendosi nella prospettiva del valore e della dignità della sessualità umana come espressione di amore e responsabilità.”

My unofficial translation:

“In light of this broad and profound vision of human sexuality and its challenges today, the Pope reaffirms that “naturally the the Church does not consider condoms as an authentic and moral solution” to the problem of AIDS.

With this, the Pope does not reform or change the teaching of the Church, but he reaffirms it, putting it in the perspective of the value and dignity of human sexuality as an expression of love and responsibility.”

Fr. Lombardi’s clarification yesterday was confusing. But journalists covering the press conference should have taken into account the actual text of the official statement, not to mention the text of the statement in the book. This discussion is much more subtle than the way it’s represented in headlines. But it also points to what I think is a huge challenge from the Pope.

Disclaimer: I’m a fan of Light of the World and I think it’s a great work, full of potential for many continuing conversations, not just about condoms. Some thoughts that struck me as I read the book:

1. The Pope knows that the world is deeply wounded and in need of healing. Division and conflict are familiar to everyone.

2. We’re not all going to agree with each other, or the Pope, on everything. But we still need to be able to get along peaceably.

3. The model for resolving conflict is violence: physical, verbal, or otherwise. The back and forth of cable news or the internet frequently does not encourage dialogue. There’s no listening. Just people repeating what they think, which means no understanding.

4. Benedict doesn’t expect everyone to agree with him: “If there had been nothing but approval, I would have had to ask myself seriously whether I was really proclaiming the whole Gospel.”

5. As I previously wrote, the Regensburg address offers an example of the potential for constructive dialogue. After the initial tragic fallout, one of the most – if not the most – substantive dialogues with Islam has ensued. This concept of dialogue, from my perspective, indicates a unique characteristic of Benedict, one which has the potential to yield great results.

But this is where the challenge lies. Are we ready to have a rational conversation, starting with listening, or will we settle for the noxious back and forth that doesn’t represent the truth of anything that’s being said?