In case you have been living under a rock for the last week or so, the mainstream media and blogosphere are abuzz with analysis of what our Holy Father said in a new book Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times. In the book, the Pope responds to questions last summer from a German reporter. He spoke of the morality present when a male prostitute chooses to use a condom to protect his partners.

Modeling our public relations strategy on the keystone cops, L’Osservatore Romano excerpted a section out of context and without proper explanation of Catholic doctrine. As the mainstream press jumped on it trumpeting a sea-change in doctrine (to what they wanted the Pope to say), official Catholic PR channels “clarified” in Vatican-speak thus insuring 99.99% of the world would continue to misunderstand. Sigh.

On the other hand, the Holy See is quite amazing and some have commented that he may have designed the whole incident as a teaching moment. That it may be, as the important point is what people eventually learn from this, not the initial fog.

Pope Benedict actually spoke of condom use by homosexual male prostitutes as a first step toward their moralization. He was speaking of the first flicker of a moral conscience in what they are doing as a good thing. He did not endorse use of condoms in general, in special circumstances, or even take the “first step” toward doing so. The mainstream press, of course, reported this very differently.

Father Joseph Fessio, S.J., founder and editor of Ignatius Press, wrote one of the best explanations in a “guestview” for Reuters:

It is important to note that there are two very serious mistranslations in the Italian version of the Pope’s remarks, upon which many early reports were based, since the embargo was broken by the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano. (That’s another story.) First, the German speak of “ein Prostituierter,” which can only be a male prostitute. The normal German word for prostitute is “[eine] Prostituierte,” which is feminine and refers only to a woman. The Italian translation “una prostituta” simply reverses what the Pope says.

Equally problematically, “giustificati” = justified, was used in the Italian translation of “begründete, and arbitrarily resolves the ambiguity one-sidedly.

The Pope responded: “She [the Church] does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality” (italics mine [Fr. Fessio]).

In the first place a solution which is not “moral” cannot be “justified.” That is a contradiction and would mean that something in itself morally evil could be “justified” to achieve a good end. Note: the concept of the “lesser evil” is inapplicable here. One may tolerate a lesser evil; one cannot do something which is a lesser evil.

But the crucial distinction here is between the “intention” of the male prostitute, viz. avoiding infecting his client, and the act itself, viz. using a condom. Since this distinction has been missed in almost every report I’ve read, it calls for some elaboration.

This distinction, in moral philosophy, is between the object of an act and the intent of an act. If a man steals in order to fornicate, the intent is to fornicate but the object is the act of theft. There is no necessary connection between stealing and fornicating.

In the case of the Pope’s remark, the intent is preventing infection and the object is use of a condom.

Here’s an example of this distinction that parallels what the Pope said. Muggers are using steel pipes to attack people and the injuries are severe. Some muggers use padded pipes to reduce the injuries, while still disabling the victim enough for the mugging. The Pope says that the intention of reducing injury (in the act of mugging) could be a first step toward greater moral responsibility. This would not justify the following headlines: “Pope Approves Padded Pipes for Mugging” “Pope Says Use of Padded Pipes Justified in Some Circumstances,” “Pope Permits Use of Padded Pipes in Some Cases.”

Of course, one may morally use padded pipes in some circumstances, e.g., as insulated pipes so that hot water flowing through them doesn’t cool as fast. And one may use condoms morally in some cases, e.g. as water balloons. But that also would not justify the headline “Pope Approves Condom Use,” though in this case it could be true. But it would be intentionally misleading.

In sum, the Pope did not “justify” condom use in any circumstances. And Church teaching remains the same as it has always been – both before and after the Pope’s statements.

Read the whole article at Reuters.

Prior to the changes implemented in response to Vatican II, the presider at Mass as well as the congregation faced east together, toward the Lord. This is known as “ad orientem,” Latin for “to the east.”

Many may be surprised to learn that nowhere in the Council documents was it even suggested that the priest should be turned away from God and toward the people. To my mind, this changes (at least to some degree) the focus from Him to us. It is some of the over-reaching, not of Vatican II itself (of course!), but of its implementation. I would definitely put this on the list of things to be considered for the “reform of the reform.”

Recently, Father Richard Simon celebrated Mass in the Ordinary Form (a/k/a “Novus Ordo”), but with a change – he did so partly ad orientem. This surprised the by-the-book part of me. I realize that EF (Extraordinary Form – a/k/a the Tridentine Mass, TLM, or the Latin Mass) is properly celebrated this way but I suspected it might be a liturgical abuse to do so with the OF. Not so! Father Simon explains:

I did it as an experiment. I suspect that the Council Fathers of Vatican II never envisioned Mass facing the people. I wanted to know what the Mass of Vatican II would really be like, some English, some Latin, Gregorian chant, unaccompanied singing and a balance of facing toward people when addressing them and facing the altar with them when addressing the Father. I think this is what is called in the rubrics of the Missal when it indicates that the priest should face the people six times during the Mass:

1. When giving the opening greeting (GIRM 124).
2. When giving the invitation to pray at the end of the offertory, “Pray brethren” (GIRM 146).
3. When giving the greeting of peace (GIRM 154).
4. When displaying the Host and Chalice before Communion and saying: “Behold the Lamb of God” (GIRM 157).
5. When inviting the people to pray before the post communion prayer (GIRM 165).
6. When giving the final blessing (Ordo Missae 141).

The fact that these rubrics exist, seems to assume that the priest is facing away from the people at some time during the liturgy.

Very interesting. Father goes on to describe his impressions:

I, however, wish I had not said Mass facing away from the congregation, and not because of the anger directed at me. I am a Catholic priest. I am used to people being angry with me. I wish I had not said Mass in what I believe to be the posture assumed by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council, because it was one of the most beautiful experiences of my priestly life. You cannot imagine what it was like to say words like “we” and “our Father” and “us” while standing at the head of a congregation that was turned together in a physical expression of unity. No matter how one might argue to the contrary, it is impossible to say “we” while looking at 500 people and not be speaking to them.

The Mass is a prayer addressed to the Father, and despite our best intentions, we clergy address it to the congregation at whom we are looking. You cannot help it. The human face is a powerful thing. Last Saturday night I realized for the first time that I was part of a family of faith directed toward the same heavenly Father. I felt as if I was part of a church at prayer. It was not my job. It was my church. I never realized how very lonely it is to say Mass facing the people. I am up there looking at you. I am not part of you. For 13 or 14 minutes. You weren’t looking at me. We were looking at God.

I love the Tridentine Mass, or as we are supposed to be calling it now, the “extraordinary form.” I think that the Holy Father has been very wise in allowing its revival for those to whom it is meaningful. Its sense of solemnity is very beautiful and enshrines an essential dimension of the mystery of worship. I taught Latin for about 25 years, I understand the complex rituals of the old Mass. They mean a lot to me. Still, I don’t think that we should return to the exclusive use of Latin. I think the Council Fathers were right to simplify the mass.

The Holy Spirit anticipated the difficulties of our times. The simplification of the complex and beautiful gestures of the Tridentine Mass are entirely appropriate for the times we live in. In the same sense, there should be a pastoral balance between the common language and a “sacred language.” People pray best in their own first language. Remember that Latin was the vernacular when the Mass was in Greek. Latin itself was a concession to the popular mind. This being said, we the clergy should admit that we enshrined the liturgical abuses that were at the heart of the rebellion against tradition. We have become stuck in the 1960’s and are unable to look without prejudice at the hemorrhaging of our congregations. We have failed to inspire them with a sense of the sacred and sublime and generations have been lost to the Lord and the Gospel.

Read the whole article at Reverend Know-It-All.

I discovered this through Father Z’s coverage. Margaret Cabaniss over at Crisis Magazine also has some good thoughts on this.

Finally, Father Fabian Duggan wrote a brief, but very good, overview of the symbolism of facing east.