AmericanPapist Comments
Yes. The whole world is learning the lessons of instant communications, right before our eyes. There will be rough spots along the way, like JA's here. May I say, though, that those possessed of liberal arts educations are the most likely to be able "to keep their heads when all about them are losing theirs."
In defense of Allen, his article was published Friday (and probably written Wednesday or Thursday) therefore we can't expect him to know any of the new developments. I look forward to reading Allen's comments next Friday to see if he corrects himself on what has been said. I reserve the right to cease defending Allen if he does not correct his original statements.
Well, Allen is hardly infallible, but he's an honest and fair reporter and that's rare enough!
I think ALL of these comments from ecclesiastical authorities, official and unofficial, have a great deal of spin to them. Was it NOT a document for public consumption originally, but became one as a result of spinning? Or was it a document for public consumption that became sidelined partly BECAUSE of public attention? Or has it always BEEN something for public consumption, but some churchmen are trying to play that down?
The thing that Allen seems to me to ADD, perhaps especially BECAUSE of the fact that he didn't have Barragan's latest commentary available is historical. The FOCUS of the document in the minds of those producing it was to examine the questions of the efficacy of condoms against AIDS and the question of the licitness of their use by married people and whether double effect could apply or not.
Perhaps most importantly, the HOPE or INTENT or UNDERSTANDING of at least SOME well-placed people working on the document was that they would be able to say that condoms could be used by married people with AIDS.
I think its a good guess that the document wasn't inspired by those who wanted to say definitively that married people COULDN'T use condoms in such circs and that if they thought that might be the outcome, they never would have proposed the document.
Of course, the document may end up being something they hate (like Humanae Vitae)! Or it may end up not being issued at all! It's all a question of reading tea leaves, of course, but I think that's the best and most honest way to read them. After all, WE can't engage in wishful thinking or agenda-driven analysis even if we're right about the substance of the teaching.
And I think everyone who agrees with Thomas on the substantive doctrinal question should be thinking about how to make sure this side of the discussion gets heard loud and clear! The Pope is brilliant and faithful and has a lot of contacts he can use. But his closest advisors have their own agendas and aren't always honest brokers. We don't want them to be able to say, "But Holy Father, this is what EVERYONE thinks!" The Holy Spirit helps those who help themselves!
Allen cites sources of his own, so who knows.
Here's some further commentary of mine to friends on why I don't see things in quite as straightforward a way as Thomas appears to:
"Sure, [the document/study's origin] might well have been on [Barragan's] initiative. Sounds like it probably
was. But whether or no, it's a POLITICAL process that is subject to
manipulation and all the various comments and observations have to be read with that in mind. Right now, Barragan wants us to believe that the origin of the document is "neutral", hence his comments. Those comments may have originated with a push from above or they may have originated in a
calculation that in order to avoid a backlash, the spotlight needs to be
taken off the document.
All I'm insisting on is that it MATTERS what the original intent and
inspirition of the document was and what the agenda of those producing it
is. Not that those factors will DETERMINE the outcome necessarily, but that they will have an important effect on it and alsot that they help to adumbrate the NATURE of the project.
It's a bad idea just to think that we will find some definitive statement of
the document's "innocence" and then we can all just forget about it and
breathe a collective sigh of relief."
Further observations:
"I think it's also important to note the STAGE at which the document is--or was--according to Allen.
'The official said the document has been approved by the consultors of the Council for Health Pastoral Care, and is now awaiting review from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He said it should appear shortly.
Experts caution, however, that until the pope approves a document and orders its publication, anything can happen.'
Regardless of what Barragan said, if Allen's source is correct, there was a completed draft ready for review by CDF that said what the original reports said it did. That could easily be true regardless of Barragans's comments.
Is it now being revised? Or is Barragan still set to send it on to CDF for review? That's the unanswered question."
as I mentioned in my post, I have an extremely busy day today that prevents me getting involved in the discussion.
suffice it to say that the point for this post is simply that the sum total of evidence is strongly against the John Allen's claim that "the vatican draft document would approve condoms for maried couples with AIDS"
I don't think that conclusion is justified based on the information I've read over the past few days.
the wider questions - about what IS being done by the vatican, about what STAGE is proceedings are in - let alone the biggest question, i.e., what teaching will come out on these issues and WHAT issues it will actually treat ... I can't get into right now (basically, final exams have to come before online discussions this week).
Will look forward to reading your comments eventualyl, Jeff - perhaps you could combine them all into a blog post or email so I can see your thoughts in one reading? thanks!
(...and please pardon the numerous grammatical and spelling errors...)
Still waiting for today´s PPOTD.
I dunno... but Mr. Allen seemed to have missed the mark a few times such as where's Papa Bene HERE?
Commenting by HaloScan
