John Allen reflects on the Pope's time in
National Catholic Reporter, 2009
I don't think I've ever covered a papal trip where the gap between internal and external perceptions has been as vast as over these three days. It's almost as if the pope has made two separate visits to
In the
Vast and pumped-up crowds flocked to see the pope, and Benedict seemed swept up in the enthusiasm. Twice he referred to Africa as the "continent of hope," and at one point, this consummate theologian even mused aloud about a new burst of intellectual energy in Africa that might generate a 21st century version of the famed school of Alexandria, which gave the early church such luminaries as Clement and Origen.
As counter-intuitive as it may seem to Westerners, it was difficult to find anyone in
Bottom line: Seen from abroad, the trip has been about condoms; on the ground, it's felt like a celebration of African Catholicism. Here's a surreal experience that underscores the disjunction.
On Tuesday, I prepared a piece on the pope's indirect, but unmistakable, rebuke of
Benedict didn't want to embarrass his host, but he also didn't want the photo-op to imply a papal seal of approval. Thus, without mentioning Biya directly, Benedict said pointedly that Christians must speak out against "corruption and abuses of power." That was enough to set off shockwaves in
I was outlining all this in my article when I had to break off to do an interview with CNN International about day one of the trip ... which was entirely devoted to the condoms controversy. To be honest, I had to wonder if we were even talking about the same event.
That said, let me be clear: This perception gap is not exclusively, or even primarily, the media's fault. The reporter from French TV who asked Benedict the condom question aboard the papal plane was well within bounds; AIDS is serious business, and it's fair game to ask the pope about it on his first visit to the continent that's been hardest hit by the disease. Once the question was popped, the ball was in Benedict's court. Much of the blame for what happened next, therefore, has to lie at his feet.
By that, I'm not taking any position on the substance of the pope's answer, though in fairness he did no more than repeat church teaching on contraception, as well as the nearly unanimous view of every African bishop I've ever interviewed: that condoms give their people a false sense of invulnerability, thereby encouraging risky sexual behavior. That may be debatable, but one can hardly fault the pope for taking his cues from the bishops on the ground. (Ironically, popes usually get in trouble precisely for not listening to local bishops.)
Setting aside what he said, there's still the matter of whether this was the right time and place to say it - especially since it would inevitably overshadow the message Benedict was flying to
Anybody who's ever spent time in front of cameras knows how to dance around a question that's not going to lead anywhere good. Benedict could have said something like: "Of course the church is deeply concerned about AIDS, which is why a quarter of all AIDS patients in the world are cared for by Catholic hospitals and other facilities. As far as condoms are concerned, our teaching is well-known, but today isn't the right time for discussing it. Instead, I want to focus on my message of hope to the African people," etc., etc. The story that probably would have resulted - "Benedict shrugs off condoms query" - would hardly have generated a global uproar.
Someone hungry for a silver lining might be tempted to say that the sideshow on condoms made the world pay attention to the
Yet however one assigns the blame, the fact remains that international discussion of Benedict in
AFRICA/AIDS "wars" distorted by libertarians
John Waters
The Irish Times, 2009
DRIVING AROUND
In the 1980s,
No sooner had Pope Benedict XVI stepped off the aircraft in
Spokesmen and women for European governments claimed the use of condoms was the vital element in the fight against Aids. We were told that "even" some priests and nuns working against Aids believe the pope is wrong.
But for every such voice, there are hundreds of priests, nuns and other anti-Aids activists in
At the core of the kick-the- pope argument is a gross absurdity. Aids was spread in
The pope, as well as opposing condoms, is also hostile to prostitution and extra-marital sex, and yet it is implied that those who have been spreading HIV/Aids through promiscuous behaviour would wear condoms if the pope told them to do so. But Pope Benedict is neither a lawmaker nor a policeman. He has the power simply to speak the truth as he has received it and then allow everyone the freedom to decide for themselves.
Whether the libertarian West likes it or not, much of the evidence in
In the 25 years since Aids was first reported in
State-sponsored programmes reduced Aids prevalence from over 30 per cent to about 6 per cent. Fidelity to a single partner was the dominant message of early HIV prevention campaigns.
In recent years, there has been a slight disimprovement in
Ideally, one might think, abstinence programmes and safe sex strategies should complement each other. But in practice the approaches are mutually incompatible. Once you advocate condom use, you are accepting that abstinence is no longer a persuasive option. And if you argue, as the Catholic Church does, that promiscuity promotes HIV/Aids, it would be ludicrous to recommend measures that, implicitly, suggest that this position can be relativised.
This is a complex issue, which certainly cannot be reduced to a simple questions of condoms. What the world needs is a full and truthful discussion, not bigoted, libertarian propaganda masquerading as reportage.
Leave a comment