The 'crunchy' pope

Read it all.

Here's a sample:

Mt. Airy, Philadelphia. Pope Benedict has recently gained a bit of credit with world media for emphasizing the urgency of addressing the environmental devastation we have wrought. This (combined with installing solar panels to make Vatican City the world’s only “carbon-neutral” sovereign state) has earned him the title “the Green Pope.” While journalists usually snip sound bites out of papal speeches for their own sensationalist purposes, so they can misrepresent their careful author as outrageous and inflammatory, here they employ their usual habits to make him more acceptable to the cosmopolitan liberal consensus. Consider the PBS coverage of Benedict’s speech to the UN last year:

He also spoke about the negative effects of globalization, especially experienced in Africa and other desperately poor parts of the world; scientific research and technological advances that, while they can bring enormous developments, can also lead, he claimed, to clear violations of “the order of creation, to the point where not only is the sacred character of life contradicted, but the human person and the family are robbed of their natural identity.” He also mentioned the necessity of swift, coordinated, and effective international action to preserve the environment. Overall, this was an uncontroversial—yet no less welcome for that—speech. It highlighted both Benedict and the Church’s internationalist credentials and went some way to gainsaying the idea that he is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative.

As PBS is there to remind us, you can’t be altogether conservative if you’re not in favor of allowing globalizing multinationals to devastate the earth.

Of course, the carbon credits the pope earns don’t make the rest of his teaching any more palatable. The Catholic expert voices consulted in a Newsweek piece on papal environmentalism make a well-meaning effort to point out the consistency of the papal message across the board. In the end, however, I don’t think they offer very helpful formulations. Lucia Silecchia of Catholic University observes

When you have an issue getting so much attention, there are a lot of voices talking about it. Benedict knows that and he wanted a seat at the table…. He saw this as a way to push the values of the church in a new context.

And Raymond Arroyo of EWTN insists

It’s all the same argument. I don’t think he loves the earth as an issue in itself, but he sees it as one thing of many that the creator designed. He’s just emphasizing it.

The truth is, however, that Benedict understands our loving and responsible relationship to God’s created earth as central to our human existence as created beings, and as fundamental to the integrity of Catholic teaching. The depth of this theme in his thought (which seems to have received little emphasis from his admirers and interpreters) comes out forcefully in his 1981 Lenten homilies in Munich (published by Eerdmans as ‘In the Beginning’).

Interpreting the symbolic significance of the seven-day creation, the then Cardinal Ratzinger points out the natural basis of the seven-day week in the lunar cycle. His explanation of the significance of this reads almost as if it could have been part of a neo-pagan ecofeminist invitation to dance naked beneath the full moon:

It becomes clear that we human beings are not bounded by the limits of our own little “I” but that we are part of the rhythm of the universe, that we too, so to speak, assimilate the heavenly rhythm and movement in our own bodies and thus, thanks to this interlinking, are fitted into the logic of the universe.

To understand clearly what he is saying here, it is crucial to note the reference to “the limits of our own little ‘I’.” As a student of Augustine, Benedict knows that self-enclosure is the essential form of sin. He also knows that the remedy for self-enclosure cannot be achieved purely “spiritually” by turning the soul to God, but involves the proper relation of love toward our human community and toward the created world—and that these are all fundamentally connected.

Exactly the same insight underlies his explanation, in The Spirit of the Liturgy, of the eastward orientation of the church building and the prayer of Christian worshippers. Praying to the east is “a fundamental expression of the Christian synthesis of cosmos and history.” Christian worship is not something that occurs within the walls of the church; it opens the worshippers to the whole integrated meaning of God’s creation and redemption of the world.

For all of humanity, the rising of the sun signals the return of light to the world after darkness, the dawning of new hopes and possibilities. Directing prayer to the place of the sun’s rising reminds us of the glorious creation we celebrate, the dawning of the world and time. But at the same time, when we look upon the sun as an image of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, our bodily and emotional responses to the world and its rhythms become suffused with the significance of the redemption. The synthesis of the created cosmos and salvation history occurs viscerally in our oriented bodies.

A church not rightly oriented risks self-enclosure in two ways. Physically, it risks the enclosure of worship in the interior of its walls, losing mindfulness of its placement on the earth in relation to the cosmos and its emphasis on opening outward. But this physical enclosure has communal consequences: “The turning of the priest toward the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle.” Worship risks becoming a theater of personality rather than a turning-together and opening-outward of priest and people toward Creator and Redeemer. Thus Ratzinger asks:

Are we not interested in the cosmos any more? Are we today really hopelessly huddled in our own little circle? Is it not important, precisely today, to pray with the whole of creation?

But of course our right relationship to the created world is not primarily a matter of our bodily response to rhythms of sun and moon. Above all, it concerns our living on and from the earth. As Ratzinger emphasizes, the creation account in Genesis portrays humankind as originating from “God’s good earth.” He helpfully contrasts this account to the Babylonian story it is opposing itself to. According to the Babylonian Enuma Elish, the earth and humanity originate from the body and blood of the sinister dragon slain by the just god Marduk. According to Genesis, on the contrary, the earth and its inhabitants are created by God from nothing and recognized by God to be good. Humankind is united by its relationship to the earth: by originating from it, being sustained by its goodness, and returning to it.

It is common today to claim that this “disenchantment” of the earth accomplished by Biblical religion has destroyed reverence for nature, and the injunction in Genesis 1.28 to “subdue the earth” has led to our culture and economy of utilitarian exploitation. Ratzinger shows convincingly that these dire outcomes result, on the contrary, from modern rejections of core elements in the creation teaching. The model for subduing the earth is given in these terms: humanity has the responsibility to “till it and keep it” (Genesis 2.15). This is a model of good agrarian tending, not of exploiting to the breaking point the productive possibilities of “raw materials.” Ratzinger emphasizes that “the world is to be used for what it is capable of and for what it is called to, but not for what goes against it.”

Orthodx prelate: Benedict XVI good; John Paul II bad?! - 'Tis Outrage!

From Rorate Caeli

Another interesting statement from Bishop Hilarion, formerly of Vienna, now of Volokolamsk, successor of the now-Patriarch Kirill as head of the Moscow Patriarchate's Department for External Church Relations. Emphases mine. I have not corrected the grammatical errors, and I am posting this without comment!


This is the latest in the series of statements from the Moscow Patriarchate in support of Pope Benedict's policies. (See this in support of Summorum Pontificum, this one on the lifting of the excommunications of the SSPX bishops, and the latest on Pope Benedict and condoms.)

The Moscow Patriarchate approves of Pope's uncompromising position on ethics


06 April 2009, 12:09


Moscow, April 6, Interfax - Refusal of Pope Benedict XVI to use politically correct language and offer compromise on traditional issues of Christian ethics has gained support of the Russian Orthodox Church.


"The difference of this current Pope from his predecessor is that this Pope never watches for political correctness in his statements. This is the reason why his statements sometimes produce shocking effect on the Western society: people there are not used when the Church's Head voices a traditional standpoint of the Church," Bishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk, a new head of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations said at a live broadcast of National Interest program shown Saturday on Rossiya TV Channel.


That was Bishop's comment of criticisms aimed at the Pope, also by the French Ministry for Foreign Affairs, for his opposition to contraception.


Bishop Hilarion continued that "we view this as a positive shift in the Catholic Church's position, because head of the Church, in particular, head of the largest Christian Church, should not adapt himself to any PC language, he should tell people what his Church teaches him to tell them."

I don't know. Diss the former pontiff who ended, or at least played a huge part, in ending communism? A pope who engaged the modern world in set the stage for the world to receive Pope Benedict? This argument seems silly, though it is good to hear positive comments. The remarks are valid too, only if time exists in vaccum; no continuity from pope to pope and age to age. This is one reason why I have issues with Orthodoxy.

BXVI on the Holy Triduum of Easter

On the Holy Triduum
"Hope Is Nourished in the Great Silence of Holy Saturday"

VATICAN CITY, APRIL 8, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of the address Benedict XVI gave today at the general audience in St. Peter's Square.

* * *

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Holy Week, which for us Christians is the most important week of the year, offers us the opportunity to be immersed in the central events of Redemption, to relive the Paschal Mystery, the great mystery of the faith. Beginning tomorrow afternoon, with the Mass "In Coena Domini," the solemn liturgical rites will help us to meditate in a more lively manner on the Passion, Death and Resurrection of the Lord in the days of the Holy Paschal Triduum, fulcrum of the entire liturgical year.

May divine grace open our hearts to comprehend the inestimable gift that salvation is, obtained for us by Christ's sacrifice. We find this immense gift wonderfully narrated in a famous hymn contained in the Letter to the Philippians (cf. 2:6-11), on which we meditated several times in Lent. The Apostle reviews, both in an essential and effective manner, the whole mystery of the history of salvation referring to Adam's pride who, not being God, wanted to be like God. And he contrasts this pride of the first man, which all of us feel a bit in our being, with the humility of the true Son of God who, becoming man, did not hesitate to take upon himself all the weaknesses of the human being, except sin, and pushed himself to the profundity of death. This descent to the last profundity of the Passion and Death is then followed by his exaltation, the true glory, the glory of the love that went all the way to the end. And that is why it is right -- as Paul says -- that "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord!" (2:10-11). With these words, St. Paul refers to a prophecy of Isaiah where God says: I am the Lord, to me every knee shall bow in heaven and on earth (cf. Isaiah 45: 23). This -- says Paul -- is also true for Jesus Christ. He really is, in his humility, in the true greatness of his love, the Lord of the world and before him every knee truly bows.

How marvelous, and at the same time amazing, is this mystery! We can never meditate this reality sufficiently. Jesus, though being God, did not want to make of his divine prerogatives an exclusive possession; he did not want to use his being God, his glorious dignity and power, as an instrument of triumph and sign of distance from us. On the contrary, "he emptied himself" assuming our miserable and weak human condition -- in this regard, Paul uses a quite meaningful Greek verb to indicate the kenosis, this descent of Jesus. The divine form (morphe) is hidden in Christ under the human form, namely, under our reality marked by suffering, poverty, human limitations and death. The radical and true sharing of our nature, a sharing in everything except sin, leads him to that frontier that is the sign of our finiteness -- death. But all this was not the fruit of a dark mechanism or a blind fatality: It was instead his free choice, by his generous adherence to the salvific plan of the Father. And the death which he went out to meet -- adds Paul -- was that of the cross, the most humiliating and degrading that one can imagine. The Lord of the universe did all this out of love for us: out of love he willed to "empty himself" and make himself our brother; out of love he shared our condition, that of every man and every woman. In this connection, Theodoret of Cyrus, a great witness of the Eastern tradition, writes: "Being God and God by nature and having equality with God, he did not retain this as something great, as do those who have received some honor beyond their merits, but concealing his merits, he chose the most profound humility and took the form of a human being" (Commentary on the Letter to the Philippians, 2:6-7).

As prelude to the Paschal Triduum, which will begin tomorrow -- as I was saying -- with the thought-provoking afternoon rites of Holy Thursday, is the solemn Chrism Mass, which the bishop celebrates in the morning with his presbytery, and in the course of which at the same time the priestly promises are renewed, made on the day of ordination. It is a gesture of great value, an occasion all the more propitious in which the priests confirm their fidelity to Christ who chose them as his ministers. Moreover, this priestly meeting assumes a particular meaning, because it is almost a preparation to the Priestly Year, which I have proclaimed on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the death of the holy Curé of Ars and which will begin next June 19. Blessed also in the Chrism Mass will be the oil of the sick and of catechumens, and the chrism will be consecrated. These are rites that signify symbolically the fullness of Christ's priesthood and the ecclesial communion that must animate Christian people, gathered for the Eucharistic sacrifice and vivified in the unity of the gift of the Holy Spirit.

In the afternoon Mass, called "In Coena Domini," the Church commemorates the institution of the Eucharist, the ministerial priesthood and the new commandment of charity, left by Jesus to his disciples. St. Paul gives one of the earliest testimonies of all that happened in the Cenacle, vigil of the Lord's Passion. "The Lord Jesus," he wrote, at the beginning of the 50's years, based on a text he received from the Lord's own realm, "on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me'" (1 Corinthians 11:23-25). Words charged with mystery, which manifest clearly the will of Christ: Under the species of bread and wine he renders himself present in his body given and with his bloodshed. It is the sacrifice of the new and definitive covenant offered to all, without distinction of race or culture. And from this sacramental rite, which he entrusts to the Church as supreme proof of his love, Jesus appointed his disciples as ministers, and those who followed them in the course of the centuries. Holy Thursday is, therefore, a renewed invitation to render thanks to God for the supreme gift of the Eucharist, to be received with devotion and to be adored with lively faith. Because of this, the Church encourages, after the celebration of Holy Mass, watching in the presence of the Most Holy Sacrament, recalling the sad hour that Jesus passed in solitude and prayer in Gethsemane, before being arrested and then being condemned to death.

And so we come to Good Friday, day of the Passion and crucifixion of the Lord. Every year, placing ourselves in silence before Jesus nailed to the wood of the cross, we realize how full of love were the words he pronounced on the eve, in the course of the Last Supper. "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many" (Mark 14:24). Jesus willed to offer his life in sacrifice for the remission of humanity's sins. Just as before the Eucharist, so before the Passion and Death of Jesus on the cross the mystery is unfathomable to reason. We are placed before something that humanly might seem absurd: a God who not only is made man, with all man's needs, not only suffers to save man, burdening himself with all the tragedy of humanity, but dies for man.

Christ's death recalls the accumulation of sorrows and evils that beset humanity of all times: the crushing weight of our dying, the hatred and violence that again today bloody the earth. The Lord's Passion continues in the suffering of men. As Blaise Pascal correctly writes, "Jesus will be in agony until the end of the world; one must not sleep during this time" (Pensées, 553). If Good Friday is a day full of sadness, and hence at the same time, all the more propitious a day to reawaken our faith, to strengthen our hope and courage so that each one of us will carry his cross with humility, trust and abandonment in God, certain of his support and victory. The liturgy of this day sings: "O Crux, ave, spes unica" (Hail, O cross, our only hope)."

This hope is nourished in the great silence of Holy Saturday, awaiting the resurrection of Jesus. On this day the Churches are stripped and no particular liturgical rites are provided. The Church watches in prayer like Mary, and together with Mary, sharing the same feelings of sorrow and trust in God. Justly recommended is to preserve throughout the day a prayerful climate, favorable to meditation and reconciliation; the faithful are encouraged to approach the sacrament of penance, to be able to participate truly renewed in the Easter celebrations.

The recollection and silence of Holy Saturday lead us at night to the solemn Easter Vigil, "mother of all vigils," when the singing of the joy of the resurrection of Christ will erupt in all the churches and communities. Proclaimed once again will be the victory of light over darkness, of life over death, and the Church will rejoice in the encounter with her Lord. We will thus enter into the climate of the Easter of Resurrection.

Dear brothers and sisters, let us dispose ourselves to live the Holy Triduum intensely, to participate ever more profoundly in the mystery of Christ. We are accompanied on this journey by the Holy Virgin, who in silence followed her son Jesus to Calvary, taking part with great sorrow in his sacrifice, thus cooperating with the mystery of the Redemption and becoming Mother of all believers (cf. John 19:25-27). Together with her we will enter the Cenacle, we will stay at the foot of the Cross, we will watch next to the dead Christ, awaiting with hope the dawn of the radiant day of the Resurrection. In this perspective, I now express to all of you the most cordial wishes for a happy and holy Easter, together with your families, parishes and communities.

[The Pope then greeted pilgrims in several languages. In Italian, he said:]

I address a cordial welcome to Italian-speaking pilgrims. In the first place I renew my spiritual closeness to the dear community of L'Aquila and of the other regions, harshly stricken by the violent seismic phenomenon of past days, which has caused numerous victims, many wounded and immense material damage. The solicitude with which the authorities, forces of order, volunteers and other workers are helping these brothers of ours shows the importance of solidarity, to overcome together such painful trials. Once again I wish to say to those populations that the Pope shares their sorrow and concern. Very dear ones, I hope to come to see you as soon as possible. Know that the Pope prays for all, imploring the Lord's mercy for the deceased and the maternal comfort of Mary for the families and survivors, and the support of Christian hope.

Then I greet the participants in the UNIV international convention, promoted by the prelature of the Opus Dei. Dear friends, I exhort you to respond with joy to the Lord's call to give full meaning to your lives: in study, in relations with colleagues, in the family and in society. "Don't forget that many great things depend on the fact that you and I," said St. Josemaría Escrivá, "behave as God wishes" (The Way, 755). I greet the faithful of the parish of St. John the Baptist, in Campagnano of Rome, and the directors, teachers and numerous young students of the Don Milani Didactic Circle of Galatone. I hope that the visit to the tombs of the Apostles will arouse in all the desire to always serve Christ and brethren ever more generously.

I greet young people, the sick and newlyweds. Tomorrow we will enter in the Holy Triduum, which will make us relive the central mysteries of our salvation. I invite you, dear young people, to draw from the Cross the necessary light to walk in the footsteps of the Redeemer. For you, dear sick people, may the Passion of the Lord, culminating in the triumph of Easter, always be the source of hope. And you, dear newlyweds, by living the Paschal Mystery, make your existence become a mutual gift.

[Translation by ZENIT]

[In English, he said]

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Tomorrow we begin the Holy Triduum, the heart of the entire liturgical year: a time when we immerse ourselves in the central events of our Redemption. The Chrism Mass serves as a prelude to these three days, as priests renew their promises to the Bishop, who then blesses the holy oils and consecrates the chrism signifying the gift of the Holy Spirit. At the Mass of the Lord's Supper, we recall the institution of the Eucharist, the supreme sign of Christ's love for us. As we venerate his Cross on Good Friday, we contemplate the full meaning of his words: "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many" (Mk 14:24). Holy Saturday finds us waiting in silent hope for the Easter Vigil, when every church will break forth in a song of joy at the Lord's Resurrection. The celebration of the Paschal mystery recalls the depth of Christ's love: he did not wish to exercise his divinity as an exclusive possession, a means of domination, or a sign of distance between him and us. Rather, "he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant" (Phil 2:7) by sharing fully in our human condition, even to the point of death: not a death imposed by blind chance or fate, but one freely chosen in obedience to the Father's will for the salvation for all. May our fervent celebration of the Triduum draw us ever more deeply into Christ's Paschal mystery!

I am pleased to greet the English-speaking pilgrims present at today's Audience. May your visit to Rome during this Holy Week fill you with the peace, hope and joy of Christ Jesus!

© Copyright 2009 -- Libreria Editrice Vaticana

Vatican responds to Belgium's facism...

From CNA:

Vatican City, Apr 3, 2009 / 01:42 pm (CNA).- In response to Belgium’s diplomatic protest against Pope Benedict’s comments that condoms could potentially "increase the problem" of AIDS being spread in Africa, Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See newsroom questioned whether the lawmakers had considered the Popes words and scientific research, or whether they received their information "through the non-objective, imbalanced filter of the echoes in the western media."

According to Reuters, the Belgium House of Deputies called the Pope’s comments "unacceptable" and instructed their government to "react strongly against any state or organization that in the future brings into doubt the benefit of using condoms to prevent transmission of the AIDS virus." [Satan, is that you?]

The measure approved with a strong majority, 95-18, and asks the government to "condemn the Pope’s unacceptable position statement and to lodge a formal protest at the Holy See." Premier Herman Van Rompuy said he will support the motion saying, "it is not the Pope’s job to shed doubts on public health policies which are unanimously supported and save lives ever day."

Father Lombardi, expressed "amazement" at the resolution, reported the Italian news service, SIR.

He questioned how a democratic country could limit the "freedom of the Holy Father and the Catholic Church to express their own positions" which are "clearly relevant to the view of the human person."

As Belgium reacted to the Pope’s comments, Lombardi pointed to "the great tradition" of the Catholic Church in "education and health-care, especially in the poorer countries" that needs no "evidence or comments."

Lombardi also questioned whether Belgium lawmakers had considered the "Pope’s arguments" and scientific research, or whether they received their information "through the non-objective, imbalanced filter of the echoes in the western media."

“Blind faith trumping common sense[1],” “Vatican insiders declare the Pope a disaster[2],” “Outrageous,” “Irresponsible” …If anything is embarrassing, it is the sensationalism of such statements in the Western media when giving the party line of anti-Catholic sentiment. The trouble is that when one looks at the science of AIDS research today, one finds a completely different story from the one being promoted by the popular media.


Whose expert opinion?



The problem for the layman is that certain organizations which sound authoritative make claims which are regarded as “expert opinions.” For example, the International Aids Society has denounced Pope Benedict XVI's comments as "contrary to scientific evidence and global consensus" and has suggested that his comments might even exacerbate HIV infection in Africa[3]. In the same vein, the president of the World Health Assembly, Leslie Ramsammy, has claimed, “The statement by the Pope is inconsistent with science, it's inconsistent with our experiences and it is not in sync with what Catholics have experienced and believe[4],” while Kevin Osborne of the International Planned Parenthood Federation says, "All the evidence is that preaching sexual abstinence and fidelity will not solve the problems …The Pope's message will alienate everybody. It is scary. It spreads stigma and creates a fertile breeding ground for the spread of HIV.[5]"



On the other hand, authorities in the field who disagree with these sorts of statements get scant media attention. Here I am not talking about renegade scientists, but professionals in HIV/AIDS research who provide technical reports to the World Health Organisation (WHO) and The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS).



Take, for example, Edward Green, director of Harvard University’s Aids Prevention Research Project (APRP): in an interview with CNA, Green stated with reference to Africa, “Theoretically, condoms ought to work, and theoretically, some condom use ought to be better than no condom use, but that’s theoretically … We just cannot find an association between more condom use and lower HIV reduction rates.[6]”



This view is echoed by Helen Epstein, specialist in public health in developing countries and consultant to Human Rights Watch. In a 2008 letter to UNAIDS she bemoans the disconnect between on-the-ground research about condoms and UN reports: “I seem to recall UNAIDS documents attributing the decline in HIV infections in US gay men to the rise of ‘the condom culture’. In fact, modeling studies by Martina Morris and behavioural surveys carried out across the US show that partner reduction was dramatic during the 1980s, when HIV decline among gays was the steepest. The “condom culture” emerged only later. I can provide many references on this, on request.” She goes on to say, “Condom use alone may have protected many individuals, but has not – in the absence of partner reduction – shown a strong epidemiological effect, anywhere. One may not like this fact, but it is true.”[7]

Condoms, though seemingly an effective technological fix, have had their greatest influence in AIDS prevention when targeted towards such areas as the sex industry in Thailand. But even then, the UNAIDS best practice reports fail to mention that there was a 60% decline in visits to brothels during Thailand’s condom campaign and that this undoubtedly contributed to the decline in HIV.[8]


Why are condoms so ineffective?



The trouble with condoms is that they have the effect of giving users a false sense of security which results in disinhibition, that is, users indulge in greater risk taking which eventually negates any protective effects of the condom. According to Potts et al., “When most transmission occurs within more regular and, typically, concurrent partnerships, consistent condom use is exceedingly difficult to maintain.” [9] James Shelton of the Bureau for Global Health, USAID, in Washington DC puts it this way: “Many people dislike using them (especially in regular relationships), protection is imperfect, use is often irregular, and condoms seem to foster disinhibition, in which people engage in risky sex either with condoms or with the intention of using condoms.”[10] “Condom use with prostitutes and in one-night stands is increasingly the norm all over the world, but they are rarely used in longer-term, less businesslike affairs,” observes Helen Epstein.[11]
Know your epidemic

It is becoming increasingly clear to AIDS researchers that some of the assumptions that underlie HIV prevention strategies are unsupported by the evidence. Some of the confusion is created by a failure to differentiate adequately between different types of epidemics. Outside of Africa (in Europe, the Americas, Middle East, Asia and Australasia) HIV tends to occur among high risk groups: Men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, sex workers and their partners. These are known as concentrated epidemics. Africa, particularly Southern and Eastern Africa, on the other hand, is an example of a generalized epidemic, with infection predominantly heterosexual and generalized among the population. Then there are epidemics such as those in the Caribbean, Pacific region, the horn of Africa and West Africa which may include characteristics of both concentrated and generalized epidemics.[12]

MYTHS ABOUT GENERALISED HIV EPIDEMICS

adapted from Shelton J, Ten myths and one truth about generalized HIV epidemics, (2007) The Lancet, Vol 370, p.1809.9

Myth


Truth

1. Prostitution is the problem.



Of more importance are simultaneous (concurrent) long-term relationships, both formal, as in polygamy, and informal.

2. Men are to blame.



Although men’s behaviour is important, women having multiple partners are a significant contributor.

3. Promiscuous adolescents.



Epidemics span all reproductive ages. HIV incidence increases in women in their twenties and older.

4. Poverty and discrimination are to blame.



The world’s highest HIV prevalence occurs in countries with greater wealth and literacy, such as Botswana (25%) and Swaziland, while countries such as Rwanda, Angola and Congo, known for episodes of conflict, genocide and rape have been much less affected.

5. Condoms are the answer.



There is no consistent relationship between condom use and the decline of a generalized epidemic.

6. Sexual behaviour will not change.



Evidence is mounting that behaviour change is possible and has already happened in some areas.

7. Treatment will stop the spread of AIDS.




Treatment seems to lead to disinhibition rather than stopping new infections.

8. New technology is the answer.



New technology is expensive and engenders a false sense of security.

According to James Shelton there are a number of myths that impede the success of AIDS prevention in Africa These misconceptions include beliefs such as that poverty and conflict increase vulnerability to HIV and that transmission occurs through sex workers and promiscuous men or adolescents; whereas current research seems to indicate that most transmission occurs because of the prevalence of multiple and simultaneous or concurrent partnerships among adults in African society.10 Helen Epstein describes it this way in her article, The Fidelity Fix: “This ‘concurrency’ links sexually active people up in a giant network, not only to one another but also to the partners of their partners’ partners – and to the partners of those partners, and so on – via a web of sexual relationships that can extend across huge regions. If one member contracts HIV, then everyone else in the web may, too.”11 Helen Epstein and Daniel Halperin of Harvard’s Centre for Population and Development Studies explain it this way: “In Africa, many longer term relationships that do not involve prostitution nevertheless tend to have a powerful ‘transactional’ element. People with more disposable income might thus be able to maintain multiple, concurrent relationships. Although very few are ‘rich’ by Western standards, they are nevertheless at the leading edge of the massive social and economic transition occurring in Africa today, from an agrarian past to a semi-industrialised present, characterized by rapid urbanization, high unemployment, and lack of social security. As with all such transitions, this creates upheavals in basic norms, customs and values, which might facilitate the spread of HIV.”[13] In an opinion piece to The Lancet, James Shelton states, “Our priority must be on the key driver of generalized epidemics - concurrent partnerships … But partner limitation (fidelity) has also been neglected because of the culture wars between advocates of condoms and advocates of abstinence, because it smacks of moralising, because mass behavioural change is alien to most medical professionals, and because of the competing priorities of HIV programmes.10



David Wilson of World Bank and Daniel Halperin of the Harvard School of Public Health agree. “For too long, the global HIV-prevention community has pursued generalized responses in concentrated epidemics, concentrated approaches in generalized epidemics, or hedged their bets and done a bit of everything,” they said in the Lancet, August 2008.

“For example, after three decades, the global community is only beginning to accept that there is no simple direct association between income, education, gender inequality, and HIV. Population-based surveys show that the wealthier African countries have the highest, not the lowest, infection levels in Africa, and more educated, upper-income people are generally more likely to be infected with HIV.” They say that it is “striking that a comparison of gender equality and HIV prevalence across African countries shows a strong positive, not negative, association.” That is, wherever women and men are most equal, HIV is most prevalent. Contrast Botswana, the second wealthiest country in Africa, with rare male circumcision, high levels of multiple concurrent partnerships and an HIV prevalence of 25%, with Niger, the lowest ranking country in the Human Development Index, predominantly Muslim with strict sexual constraints and universal male circumcision, but an HIV prevalence of 0.7%. “Turning to generalized epidemics” continue Wilson and Halperin, “we face three overarching challenges. First, our most trusted prevention interventions – testing and counseling, condom promotion, school and youth programmes, and treatment of other sexually transmitted infections … are at best unproven, and at worst disproven, for reducing HIV incidence. Second, the most solidly proven preventive intervention to date, male circumcision, is barely advancing … In countries such as Zambia, with 15% adult HIV prevalence and nearly US$1billion in aid annually for AIDS, much less than 1% of this funding goes for male circumcision services … Third, the major contributor to reduced HIV transmission in generalized epidemics has been reduction in multiple sexual partnerships (increased fidelity). Compelling evidence of this association has emerged in a growing number of African countries, such as Kenya, Zimbabwe and Ethiopia. Additionally, partner reduction seems to have contributed to HIV declines in Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Yet, except for Uganda in the late 1980s, and more recently in Swaziland, reductions in multiple partnerships seem to have mainly occurred despite, not because of, formal programmes.”12


What happened in Uganda



In 1993, Helen Epstein was working as a molecular biologist in Uganda, at that time the country with the highest HIV-infection rate in the world. She explains how HIV incidence plummeted from 21% in 1991to 6% in 2002. “At the time, few international health experts were working on AIDS in Uganda, but the Ugandan government developed a simple and effective program on its own. In 1986, the Uganda Ministry of Health started a vigorous HIV-prevention campaign in which the slogans ‘Love Carefully,’ ‘Love Faithfully” and ‘Zero Grazing’ – Ugandan slang for ‘Don’t have sexual partners outside the home’ – were posted on public buildings, broadcast on radio and bellowed in speeches by government officials, teachers and AIDS-prevention workers across the country. Religious leaders scoured the Bible and the Koran for quotations about infidelity. Newspapers, theatres, singing groups and ordinary people spread the same message. Their words fell on fertile ground … A realistic fear of AIDS was reinforced by a compassionate response to the suffering the disease created. Ordinary Ugandans have always been much more open about AIDS than people from other African countries, and they were also far more likely to admit that they knew someone who had died of the disease or was infected with HIV. Community- and church-based groups sprang up to help families affected by AIDS. Uganda’s women’s movement, one of the oldest and most dynamic in Africa, galvanized around issues of domestic abuse, rape and HIV. The anger of the activists, and the eloquent sorrow of women throughout the country who nursed the sick and helped neighbours cope, was a harsh reproach to promiscuous men. So was their gossip, a highly efficient method of spreading any public-health message.”11



An article by Potts et al. in Science explains it as follows: “In Uganda, HIV prevalence declined dramatically following the extensive “Zero Grazing” campaign of the late 1980s. WHO surveys conducted in 1989 and 1995 found a greater than 50% reduction in the number of people reporting multiple and casual partners. In Kenya, partner reduction and fidelity also appear to have been the main behavioural change associated with the recent HIV decline. Similar behaviour change has been reported in DHS surveys in Zimbabwe, where HIV has also fallen, along with Ethiopia, Cote d’Ivoire, and urban Malawi. In Swaziland, the number of people reporting two or more partners in the past month was halved after an aggressive 2006 campaign focusing on the danger of having a ‘secret lover’.” 9
Reassessing the funding



Potts and his team plead for a reassessment of funding for interventions that have the greatest potential impact. In a letter responding to comments by the Department of Evidence, Monitoring and Policy at UNAIDS, they say, “We note that the requested funding for [hyper-endemic and generalized] epidemics would comprise only a little over 20% of the global total, even though such epidemics account for over two-thirds of all HIV infections worldwide. Also, although 5% of this funding would be dedicated to circumcision programs, the large majority of resources would continue to be allocated to other interventions, for which the evidence of prevention impact in generalized epidemics is much weaker … Recent CDC data from Uganda suggest that most married people who recently acquired HIV were infected by an extramarital partner or by their spouse who had recently acquired HIV from an extramarital partner. Many of the latter were probably in the brief “acute infection” period, when HIV infectivity is much higher yet undetectable by a standard HIV test. It is crucial to address the multiple and concurrent partnerships that mainly drive these generalized epidemics.” [14]



A growing number of AIDS experts who are prepared to look at the facts are questioning why the Ugandan approach has not been emphasized in Southern Africa and elsewhere. Edward Green in his book Rethinking AIDS Prevention says, “There is also a troubling suspicion among a growing number of scientists who support the ABC model that certain opponents may simply be AIDS profiteers, more interested in protecting their incomes than battling the disease.”[15] His book, Aids and Ideology, due for release later this year highlights the AIDS funding industry which is “drawing billions of dollars a year promoting condoms, testing, drugs and treatment of AIDS.”6



Claiming that AIDS has been spread because of the lack of human rights for “vulnerable populations”, such as homosexual men and sex workers, the UN, in the document International Guidelines on HIVAIDS and Human Rights, have suggested that AIDS cannot be defeated unless all international laws restricting human sexuality are amended: “Criminal law prohibiting sexual acts (including adultery, sodomy, fornication and commercial sexual encounters) between consenting adults in private should be reviewed, with the aim of repeal.” The Guidelines also promote abortion on demand, legalization of homosexual marriage, and laws “providing penalties for vilification of people who engage in same-sex relationships.” One could argue that to the UN, AIDS funding is more about promoting the ideologies of the sexual revolution than about using the research to promote public health.[16]



“To treat one AIDS patient with life-prolonging anti-retroviral drugs costs more than $1,000 a year. Our successful ABC campaign cost just 29 cents per person each year," explains Sam Ruteikara, co-chair of Uganda’s AIDS Prevention Committee.[17] David Kalema, Ugandan AIDS activist, puts it poignantly in the film “The Change is On”[18], which documents the Catholic Church’s approach to behaviour modification in South Africa and Uganda:



"Maybe they tried [abstinence] and it failed, and since it failed with them, they think it will fail with everyone. I'm a testimony myself. I finished my primary [school] without having sex. I went for my secondary education, I didn't have sex, I went to University, I was not having sex. I never fell sick because of not having sex. Can this world tell me that it only worked with me? The way it worked with me it can work with everyone else. My friends who used to laugh at me thinking that abstinence is abnormal, most of them are dead by now.”



You can comment on this article here on our Facebook site

References



[1] Cockburn, L. Blind faith trumping common sense. 18 March 2009. Edmonton Sun. http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2009/03/18/8787936-sun.html (accessed 22 March 2009).

[2] Squires, N. Vatican insiders declare the Pope a ‘disaster’. 19 March 2009. Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/5018013/Vatican-insiders-declare-the-Pope-a-disaster.html (accessed 21 March 2009).

[3] Pope's condom comments could fuel HIV/AIDS, AFP, 21 March 2009, http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hoINS_JuqDuL85UVqlbipy--E61g , (accessed on 21 March 2009).

[4] World Health Assembly: Pope Benedict ‘Wrong’, AFP, 22 March 2009. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hsk4RI5cPLSsvXTY9ZEyWSMrVElg (accessed 22 March 2009)

[5] Clayton, J. and Redhill, R. Pope Benedict XVI's AIDS comments under fire. The Australian, 19 March 2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25206355-32682,00.html (accessed 21 March 2009)

[6] Harvard researcher agrees with Pope on condoms in Africa, Catholic News Agency, 21 March 2009, http://catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15445 (accessed on 21 March 2009).

[7] Epstein, H., email to UNAIDS, 18 January 2008.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Potts, M., Halperin, D. et al. Reassessing HIV Prevention, Science, AAAS, Vol.320, p.750. 9 May 2008. http://www.hvtn.org/media/ReassessingPrevention.pdf

[10] Shelton, J. Ten myths and one truth about generalized HIV epidemics, The Lancet Vol 370, 1 December 2007. http://www.botsblog.org/pdf/10MythsLancet07.pdf

[11] Epstein, H. The Fidelity Fix, New York Times Magazine, 13 June 2004.

[12] Wilson, D. and Halperin, D. “Know your epidemic, know your response”: a useful approach if we get it right. The Lancet, Vol. 372. 9 August 2008. http://www.comminit.com/en/node/276049/347

[13] Epstein, H. and Halperin, D. Letter in response to Wellings et al. Sexual behaviour in context: a global perspective. The Lancet, Vol. 369 17 February 2007.

[14] Halperin, D., Potts, M. et al. Letters: Tailoring AIDS Prevention – Response. Science, Vol. 321, 19 September 2008.

[15] Green, E. Rethinking Aids Prevention: Learning from Successes in Developing Countries. 2003. Praeger.

[16] Sylva, D. Aids and the ideological barrier: the threat to “sexual liberation”. Ethics and Medics. Vol. 33, No. 12. December 2008.

[17] Ruteikara, Sam. Let my people go: AIDS profiteers. Washington Post. 30 June 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/29/AR2008062901477.html (accessed 23 March 2009).
[18] The Change is On. Metanoia Media. Directed by Norman Servais, South Africa, 2008. http://www.metanoia.co.za/ProductInfo.aspx?productid=METTCIO

Harvard Researcher agrees with Pope on condoms in Africa

Cambridge, Mass., Mar 21, 2009 / 10:11 am (CNA).- Pope Benedict’s recent brief remark against condoms has caused an uproar in the press, but several prominent scientists dedicated to preventing AIDS are defending the Pope, saying he was correct in his analysis. In an interview with CNA, Dr. Edward Green explained that although condoms should work, in theory, they may be “exacerbating the problem” in Africa.

Benedict XVI’s Tuesday comments on condoms were made as part of his explanation of the Church’s two prong approach to fighting AIDS. At one point in his response the Pontiff stressed that AIDS cannot be overcome by advertising slogans and distributing condoms and argued that they “worsen the problem.” The media responded with an avalanche of over 4,000 articles on the subject, calling Benedict a “threat to public health,” and saying that the Catholic Church should “enter the 21st century.”

Senior Harvard Research Scientist for AIDS Prevention, Dr. Edward Green, who is the author of five books, including “Rethinking AIDS Prevention: Learning from Successes in Developing Countries” discussed his support for Pope Benedict XVI’s comments with CNA.

According to Dr. Green, science is finding that the media is actually on the wrong side of the issue. In fact, Green says that not only do condoms not work, but that they may be “exacerbating the problem” in Africa.

“Theoretically, condoms ought to work,” he explained to CNA, “and theoretically, some condom use ought to be better than no condom use, but that’s theoretically.”

Condom proponents often cite the lack of condom education as the main culprit for higher AIDS rates in Africa but Green disagrees.

After spending 25 years promoting condoms for family planning purposes in Africa, he insists that he’s quite familiar with condom promotion. Yet, he claims that “anyone who worked in family planning knew that if you needed to prevent a pregnancy, say the woman will die, you don’t recommend a condom.”

Green recalls that when the AIDS epidemic hit Africa, the “Industry” began using AIDS as a “dual purpose” marketing strategy to get more funding for condom distribution. This, he claims, effectively took “something that was a 2nd or 3rd grade device for avoiding unwanted pregnancies” and turned it into the “best weapon we [had] against AIDS.”

The accepted wisdom in the scientific community, explained Green, is that condoms lower the HIV infection rate, but after numerous studies, researchers have found the opposite to be true. “We just cannot find an association between more condom use and lower HIV reduction rates” in Africa.

Dr. Green found that part of the elusive reason is a phenomenon known as risk compensation or behavioral disinhibition.

“[Risk compensation] is the idea that if somebody is using a certain technology to reduce risk, a phenomenon actually occurs where people are willing to take on greater risk.” The idea can be related to someone that puts on sun block and is willing to stay out in the sun longer because they have added protection. In this case, however, the greater risk is sexual. Because people are willing take on more risk, they may “disproportionally erase” the benefits of condom use, Green said.

Another factor that contributes to ineffective condom use in Africa, is the phenomenon where condoms may be effective on an “individual level,” but not on a “population level.” Green’s research found that “condoms have been effective” in HIV concentrated areas where high risk activities are already being conducted, such as brothels in countries like Thailand.

Claiming to be a liberal himself, Green asserts that promoting Western “liberal ideology” where, “most Africans are conservative when it comes to sexual behavior,” is quite offensive to them. Citing his new book, “Indigenous Theories and Contagious Disease,” Green described Africans as “very religious by global standards” who are offended by “trucks going around where people are dancing to ‘Rock ‘n’ Roll’, tossing out condoms to teenagers and the children of the village.”

Green also noted that there is an ideology called “harm reduction” that is being pushed by many organizations trying to prevent AIDS. The ideology believes that “you can’t change the underlying behavior, that you can’t get people to be faithful, especially Africans,” the HIV specialist explained.

Read the rest of the story here.

Cardinal: Criticisms of Pope Have Gone Too Far

Archbishop of Genoa Laments Recent Accusations

ROME, MARCH 24, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Attacks directed toward Benedict XVI have gone too far, and Catholics won't go along with it, says the president of Italy's episcopal conference.

Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, the archbishop of Genoa, said this Monday at the inaugural session of the conference's permanent episcopal council, under way in Rome.

Referring to the recent controversies regarding the lifting of the excommunication of four bishops of the St. Pius X Society, and comments the Pontiff made about condoms on his trip to Africa, the cardinal said "the harshest criticisms to our beloved Pope -- from Italy and above all from abroad -- have gone beyond good sense."

Not wanting to dedicate too much time on the "clumsy accusations," Cardinal Bagnasco directed his comments toward the letter Benedict XVI sent earlier this month to the bishops of the world, in which he explained the reasons for lifting the excommunication of the four Lefebvrite prelates, who had been unlawfully ordained in 1988 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

The letter "immediately attracted wide consensus," the cardinal noted. He described it as an appeal to the whole Church for genuine reconciliation.

Nevertheless, the cardinal expressed a "severe judgment" regarding the "postures and words that led to a situation which should never have come about, fueling systematic alarmist interpretations and conduct that is mistrustful toward the hierarchy."

Distraction

Regarding Benedict XVI's trip to Cameroon and Angola last week, Cardinal Bagnasco noted that "from the beginning, [it] was diverted from Westerners' attention by a controversy -- on condoms -- which, frankly, was unwarranted."

"It is no accident that Africa's own media showed no interest in the subject, were it not for the damaging insistence of international agencies, and for the statements of some European political leaders and supranational organizations," affirmed the cardinal.

The archbishop of Genoa lamented that the media, governments and international institutions did not "limit themselves to dissent freely, but reached an ostracism that goes beyond secular canons themselves. In any case, derision and vulgarity will never be part of civilized language, and fatally fall on those who practice it."

Furthermore, the cardinal said the Holy Father's comments on the issue have been confirmed by those who work in the fields of health and education in Africa.

Africa needs to focus more on promoting greater access to education and medical care, as well as the "effective promotion of women," Cardinal Bagnasco continued.

He appealed to governments "to keep their commitments," to go beyond "demagogy and the neo-colonial logic of control."

The cardinal also noted that bishops and the faithful will not accept that the Pope is laughed at or insulted, as "the best tradition of our Catholicism is to be with the Pope always and unconditionally."

Benedict XVI Reflects on Africa Trip

Here's the Vatican link to all the resources of BXVI's visit.

Says He Was Impressed by Joy, Devotion

VATICAN CITY, MARCH 24, 2009 (Zenit.org).- The joy of the African peoples, combined with their spirit of recollection and sense of the sacred, were two aspects of the continent that impressed Benedict XVI.
The Pope said this Monday during his return flight from Angola, reported H20news.

The Holy Father said he was impressed, on one hand, by "the almost exuberant cordiality, the joy of a festive Africa, which it seems to me saw in hope, lets say, the personification of the fact that we are the children and family of God."

"This family exists and we, with all our limitations, are in that family and God is with us. So the Pope's presence has helped to feel this," he added.

"On the other hand," continued the Holy Father, "I was very impressed by the spirit of recollection in the liturgies, the strong sense of the sacred: In the liturgies there is no group representation or personal leadership, but the presence of the sacred, of God himself. Their movements were also movements of respect and awareness of the divine presence."

Tragedy

Benedict XVI expressed his profound sorrow over the death of two girls trampled by the crowd, which also left some 90 wounded, in the incident that took place outside Luanda's Coqueiros Stadium, where soon afterward the meeting with young Congolese was to be held.

"I have prayed, and pray for them," said the Pontiff.

The Holy Father also recalled the meeting Thursday with the sick in Yaoundé's Cardinal Paul-Émile Léger Center, a rehabilitation center for people with disabilities, founded in 1972 by the Canadian cardinal after whom it is named.

"It touched my heart to see here the world of the many sufferings, of all suffering, the sadness, the poverty of human existence, but also to see how the state and Church collaborate to help those who suffer," commented the Pope.

"And one sees, it seems to me, that when a man helps one who suffers he is more of a man, the world becomes more human: This is engraved in my memory," he added.

Benedict XVI traveled to Africa to personally present to the presidents of the 42 episcopal conferences on the continent the "instrumentum laboris" (working document) for the Second Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for Africa, which will be held Oct. 4-25 in Rome.

Moscow Patriarchate Backs Pope's Stance on Condoms

From Zenit.
Says They Can't Be Considered Remedy Against AIDS

MOSCOW, MARCH 20, 2009 (Zenit.org).- The Russian Orthodox Church is supporting Benedict XVI's position that condoms are not an acceptable solution to AIDS.

A message on the French official Web site of the Church stated, "The Patriarchate of Moscow is in solidarity with Pope Benedict XVI's position on the means in the fight against AIDS, and on the fact that condoms cannot be considered as a remedy against this sickness."

This statement came as a response to the Pope's words to journalists on his flight to Africa, in which he affirmed: "This problem of AIDS cannot be overcome only with publicity slogans.

"If there is not the soul, if the Africans are not helped, the scourge cannot be resolved with the distribution of condoms: on the contrary, there is a risk of increasing the problem."

Today the deputy chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations, Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, said "It is incorrect to see condoms as a panacea for AIDS."

He noted that AIDS can be prevented not by contraceptives but by education and a righteous life, as the Orthodox Church also teaches.

"The spread of AIDS will only be halted with the ethical education of the affected peoples, and not with recourse to condoms," states the Church's communiqué.

The Russian agency Interfax reported Friday that Father Tchapline took part in a round table in Moscow on the subject. He pointed out that at present certain organizations attempt to simultaneously emphasize the idea of sexual freedom and the fight against AIDS, but that it is impossible to reconcile both of these.

Cardinal Ruini, summarizing the focus of BXVI's pontificate

Here's the whole piece at Chiesa.

Cardinal Ruini:

The first and greatest priority is God himself, that God who is too easily pushed to the edges of our lives, focused on "doing," especially through "techno-science," and on "enjoyment-consumption." That God is even expressly negated by an evolutionist "metaphysics" that reduces everything to nature, to matter-energy, to chance (random mutations) and to necessity (natural selection), or more often is said to be unknowable according to the principle that "latet omne verum," all truth is hidden, as a result of the restriction of the horizons of our reason to that which can be experienced and measured, according to the view now prevalent. That God, finally, who has been proclaimed "dead," with the assertion of nihilism and the resulting collapse of all certainty.

Benedict's letter to bishops on the SSPX bungle...

This is a letter from a humble shepherd.

Dear Brothers in the Episcopal Ministry!

The remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated in 1988 by Archbishop Lefebvre without a mandate of the Holy See has for many reasons caused, both within and beyond the Catholic Church, a discussion more heated than any we have seen for a long time. Many Bishops felt perplexed by an event which came about unexpectedly and was difficult to view positively in the light of the issues and tasks facing the Church today. Even though many Bishops and members of the faithful were disposed in principle to take a positive view of the Pope’s concern for reconciliation, the question remained whether such a gesture was fitting in view of the genuinely urgent demands of the life of faith in our time. Some groups, on the other hand, openly accused the Pope of wanting to turn back the clock to before the Council: as a result, an avalanche of protests was unleashed, whose bitterness laid bare wounds deeper than those of the present moment. I therefore feel obliged to offer you, dear Brothers, a word of clarification, which ought to help you understand the concerns which led me and the competent offices of the Holy See to take this step. In this way I hope to contribute to peace in the Church.

An unforeseen mishap for me was the fact that the Williamson case came on top of the remission of the excommunication. The discreet gesture of mercy towards four Bishops ordained validly but not legitimately suddenly appeared as something completely different: as the repudiation of reconciliation between Christians and Jews, and thus as the reversal of what the Council had laid down in this regard to guide the Church’s path. A gesture of reconciliation with an ecclesial group engaged in a process of separation thus turned into its very antithesis: an apparent step backwards with regard to all the steps of reconciliation between Christians and Jews taken since the Council -- steps which my own work as a theologian had sought from the beginning to take part in and support. That this overlapping of two opposed processes took place and momentarily upset peace between Christians and Jews, as well as peace within the Church, is something which I can only deeply deplore. I have been told that consulting the information available on the internet would have made it possible to perceive the problem early on. I have learned the lesson that in the future in the Holy See we will have to pay greater attention to that source of news. I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility. Precisely for this reason I thank all the more our Jewish friends, who quickly helped to clear up the misunderstanding and to restore the atmosphere of friendship and trust which -- as in the days of Pope John Paul II -- has also existed throughout my pontificate and, thank God, continues to exist.

Another mistake, which I deeply regret, is the fact that the extent and limits of the provision of 21 January 2009 were not clearly and adequately explained at the moment of its publication. The excommunication affects individuals, not institutions. An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope. Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment -- excommunication -- with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity. Twenty years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return. This gesture was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council. Here I return to the distinction between individuals and institutions. The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers -- even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty -- do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.

In light of this situation, it is my intention henceforth to join the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" -- the body which has been competent since 1988 for those communities and persons who, coming from the Society of Saint Pius X or from similar groups, wish to return to full communion with the Pope -- to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes. The collegial bodies with which the Congregation studies questions which arise (especially the ordinary Wednesday meeting of Cardinals and the annual or biennial Plenary Session) ensure the involvement of the Prefects of the different Roman Congregations and representatives from the world’s Bishops in the process of decision-making. The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 -- this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life. [hahahahaha!]

I hope, dear Brothers, that this serves to clarify the positive significance and also the limits of the provision of 21 January 2009. But the question still remains: Was this measure needed? Was it really a priority? Aren’t other things perhaps more important? Of course there are more important and urgent matters. I believe that I set forth clearly the priorities of my pontificate in the addresses which I gave at its beginning. Everything that I said then continues unchanged as my plan of action. The first priority for the Successor of Peter was laid down by the Lord in the Upper Room in the clearest of terms: "You… strengthen your brothers" (Lk 22:32). Peter himself formulated this priority anew in his first Letter: "Always be prepared to make a defence to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you" (1 Pet 3:15). In our days, when in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel, the overriding priority is to make God present in this world and to show men and women the way to God. Not just any god, but the God who spoke on Sinai; to that God whose face we recognize in a love which presses "to the end" (cf. Jn 13:1) -- in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen. The real problem at this moment of our history is that God is disappearing from the human horizon, and, with the dimming of the light which comes from God, humanity is losing its bearings, with increasingly evident destructive effects.

Leading men and women to God, to the God who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith -- ecumenism -- is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light -- this is interreligious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love "to the end" has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity -- this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical Deus Caritas Est.

So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church’s real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who "has something against you" (cf. Mt 5:23ff.) and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents -- to the extent possible -- in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim him and, with him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?

Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things -- arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them -- in this case the Pope -- he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint. [Boom.]

Dear Brothers, during the days when I first had the idea of writing this letter, by chance, during a visit to the Roman Seminary, I had to interpret and comment on Galatians 5:13-15. I was surprised at the directness with which that passage speaks to us about the present moment: "Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’. But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." I am always tempted to see these words as another of the rhetorical excesses which we occasionally find in Saint Paul. To some extent that may also be the case. But sad to say, this "biting and devouring" also exists in the Church today, as expression of a poorly understood freedom. Should we be surprised that we too are no better than the Galatians? That at the very least we are threatened by the same temptations? That we must always learn anew the proper use of freedom? And that we must always learn anew the supreme priority, which is love? The day I spoke about this at the Major Seminary, the feast of Our Lady of Trust was being celebrated in Rome. And so it is: Mary teaches us trust. She leads us to her Son, in whom all of us can put our trust. He will be our guide -- even in turbulent times. And so I would like to offer heartfelt thanks to all the many Bishops who have lately offered me touching tokens of trust and affection, and above all assured me of their prayers. My thanks also go to all the faithful who in these days have given me testimony of their constant fidelity to the Successor of Saint Peter. May the Lord protect all of us and guide our steps along the way of peace. This is the prayer that rises up instinctively from my heart at the beginning of this Lent, a liturgical season particularly suited to interior purification, one which invites all of us to look with renewed hope to the light which awaits us at Easter.

With a special Apostolic Blessing, I remain

Yours in the Lord,

BENEDICTUS PP. XVI

From the Vatican, 10 March 2009

The media and the left - drumming up hatred in the name of 'tolerance'

Ash Wednesday 2009

Ash Wednesday

Today the Church celebrates : St Ethelbert of Kent

Book of Joel 2,12-18.

Yet even now, says the LORD, return to me with your whole heart, with fasting, and weeping, and mourning; Rend your hearts, not your garments, and return to the LORD, your God. For gracious and merciful is he, slow to anger, rich in kindness, and relenting in punishment. Perhaps he will again relent and leave behind him a blessing, Offerings and libations for the LORD, your God. Blow the trumpet in Zion! proclaim a fast, call an assembly; Gather the people, notify the congregation; Assemble the elders, gather the children and the infants at the breast; Let the bridegroom quit his room, and the bride her chamber. Between the porch and the altar let the priests, the ministers of the LORD, weep, And say, "Spare, O LORD, your people, and make not your heritage a reproach, with the nations ruling over them! Why should they say among the peoples, 'Where is their God?'" Then the LORD was stirred to concern for his land and took pity on his people.

Psalms 51(50),3-4.5-6.12-13.14.17.

Have mercy on me, God, in your goodness; in your abundant compassion blot out my offense.
Wash away all my guilt; from my sin cleanse me.
For I know my offense; my sin is always before me.
Against you alone have I sinned; I have done such evil in your sight That you are just in your sentence, blameless when you condemn.
A clean heart create for me, God; renew in me a steadfast spirit.
Do not drive me from your presence, nor take from me your holy spirit.
Restore my joy in your salvation; sustain in me a willing spirit.
Lord, open my lips; my mouth will proclaim your praise.

Second Letter to the Corinthians 5,20-21.6,1-2.

So we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who did not know sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him. Working together, then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain. For he says: "In an acceptable time I heard you, and on the day of salvation I helped you." Behold, now is a very acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation.

Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew 6,1-6.16-18.

(But) take care not to perform righteous deeds in order that people may see them; otherwise, you will have no recompense from your heavenly Father. When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing, so that your almsgiving may be secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you. When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you. When you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites. They neglect their appearance, so that they may appear to others to be fasting. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, so that you may not appear to be fasting, except to your Father who is hidden. And your Father who sees what is hidden will repay you.

Commentary of the day :

Pope Benedict XVI
General Audience 06/02/08 (© copyright Libreria Editrice Vaticana)

In the primitive Church at the outset Lent was the privileged time for preparing catechumens to receive the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist, which were celebrated at the Easter Vigil. Lent was considered as the period in which to become a Christian which was not brought about in an instant but required a long journey of conversion and renewal. The baptized also joined in this preparation, reviving the memory of the Sacrament they had received with renewed communion with Christ, available to them at the joyful celebration of Easter. Thus, Lent had and still has today preserved the character of a baptismal process in the sense that it helps keep alive the awareness that being Christians is always achieved by becoming Christians over and over again: it is never a story that is over once and for all but rather a journey which requires us to start out constantly anew.

As he places the Ashes on the person's forehead the celebrant says "Remember you are dust, and to dust you shall return" (cf. Gn 3: 19), or he repeats Jesus' exhortation "Repent, and believe in the Gospel" (cf. Mk 1: 15). Both formulas are a reminder of the truth about human life: we are limited creatures, sinners always in need of repentance and conversion. How important it is to listen to and accept this reminder in our time! When contemporary man proclaims his total autonomy from God, he enslaves himself and often finds himself in comfortless loneliness. The invitation to conversion, therefore, is an incentive to return to the embrace of God, the tender and merciful Father, to entrust oneself to him, to entrust oneself to him as adoptive sons, regenerated by his love... Therefore, to convert is to let oneself be won over by Jesus (cf. Phil 3: 12) and "to return" with him to the Father. Conversion thus entails placing oneself humbly at the school of Jesus and walking meekly in his footsteps.

Fr. Z. parses Doug Kmiec's latest fraud

The Pope’s enemies have skulked out of the forest and are forming packs. They seek to hound the Pope, bite at him, drive him from the direction he is leading the Church.

A couple days ago I posted about the article in TIME by the squishy Doug Kmiec, a professor of law. During the last presidential campaign Kmiec worked to undermine the Catholic view that concern for lives of the unborn outweighs other burning social concerns.

Kmiec, whom I suspect wants to be appointed to something by the Obama Administration, some time ago issued a +3000 word jeremiad/apologia about how badly he was was treated in the blogosphere.

Kmiec’s recent piece in TIME follows the meeting pro-abortion "Catholic" Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had with Pope Benedict XVI in Rome. Subsequent to that fifteen minute meeting, both Pelosi’s office and the Holy See issued very different statements about what was discussed.

In the Holy See’s statement, released by the Press Office, we read: "His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development."

Kmiec wrote in his recent TIME article that this statement effectively changes the Church’s teaching and obliges also jurists in the same way legislators are obliged by the Church.

Now that some other bloggers are picking up on Kmiec’s article in TIME, and since that article was still bugging me, I need to add something.

The real problem with Kmiec’s article is that he dissimulates about what the Holy See’s statement actually says.

Leave aside the question of the original Italian, if the statement said in Italian guiristi or guidici. That is interesting, but it’s not the real problem.

Kmiec wants the reader to accept the premise that the Pope is imposing a new moral duty imposed on jurists, a duty to "undertake an activist, law-changing role".

The Pope didn’t say that at all. The statement does not say that jurists must be activists. It says that jurists should "work for a system of law capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development".

Kmiec says that there is now a "new directive" from Rome. There isn’t.

Here is the slight of hand: Kmiec says the Pope says that judges must use judicial activism in order to limit abortion, implying that they should "legislate from the bench" as judges do when they interpret the US Constitution broadly instead of narrowly or strictly). Kmiec reasons that the Pope is saying that if judges don’t oppose abortion by employing this kind of activism, then they are guilty in the same way as Catholic legislators are when they promote abortion rights.

Again, that is not what the Holy See’s statement says.

The statement did not, as Kmiec claims, impose "moral duties on Catholic jurists that are incompatible with their envisioned judicial role".

Kmiec wrongly interprets the papal statement as putting jurists and legislators in the same category so that their responsibilities about protecting human life must be exercised in the same way. Kmiec says the pope doesn’t recognize that there are different roles.

Remember that Kmiec is writing for the for TIME/CNN machine, which has its expectations. He is using "activist" as the polar opposite of "originalist". I think he uses "originalist" because it sounds more like "fundamentalist" than "strict constructionist" would. On the surface, Kmiec is trying to make it seem that the Pope came out against originalism embraced by Justice Scalia. In other words, you can no longer hide behind originalism. Kmiec says the Pope says you MUST become a judicial activist.

Rubbish.

All of that said….

My biggest problem with Kmiec’s article is how he seeks to undercut the Pope’s authority. He is suggesting that the Pope is being unreasonable. The Pope can’t possibly mean what is said in that statement. It would be a disaster for Catholic jurists. Strong pro-life/anti-abortion statements were already disaster for legislators, after all. Catholics will have to opt out of juridical life, indeed any public role, if the Pope meant what he said because they would be caught between too many rocks and hard places.

The diabolical side of this is that a dimension of what Kmiec is saying veers close to the truth: it is not going to be easy to square the demands of faith in the context of public responsibilities.

How will Catholics be able to participate in public life when our systems reject natural law in favor of a utilitarian ethic?

Must we either opt out of the public square or lead a revolution? Will Catholicism end up being a curious sect, like the Amish?

So, in that sense, and that sense only, Kmiec raises a good point.

But what he is really saying is false and dangerous: "See what an impossible situation the Pope has created even for my enemies the originalists? We are now all in the same sinking boat of extremism because of what the Pope said. We must, for the sake of having a Catholic role in the public square carefully filter out the extremism of the Pope and other Catholic leaders who parrot his hard line position."

That, folks, is Kmiec’s real agenda.

[snip]

Kmiec fogs this distinction and tried to make the Pope look like an extremist. Savvy Catholics, like Kmiec and Pelosi and Kerry and Kennedy and Cuomo and Sebelius and Granholm and Dodd and Biden, etc., must set aside the urgings of extremists and filter out the interpretations of hard-liners in order to save their version of the Church’s message in the public square.

That is his true agenda.

The media vs. the Church

A good description of media bias...

Shrove Tuesday
by David Warren
2/24/09

The marvelous thing about penitence is you don't have to be particularly guilty to enjoy it. I write "particularly," of course, out of anxiety to cover my theological position: We are all "generally" or "originally" guilty, all born into the heritage of Adam, and unquestionably needful of Christ's redeeming grace. But penitence is not punishment, and the Lent that begins tomorrow is not for anything in particular we have done. (The expression, "That was for nothing; wait till you do something," teases me from my atheist days.)

The Church herself enjoys penitence, some divinely self-imposed, and some imposed externally; and of that externally imposed, some deserved, and some not. An example of this last I watched as it arrived via the BBC one month ago. The headline on their Web site read, "Pope move ignites Holocaust row." It hadn't quite ignited this yet, at the time it appeared, but it soon would, as the BBC (which, like the rest of the Mainstream Media, is viscerally anti-Catholic) was obviously hoping.

I immediately recalled the viciously irresponsible way in which the "Beeb" belatedly reported Pope Benedict XVI's address at the University of Regensburg in 2006. While other media outlets slept, the BBC became the first international news disseminator to realize that there was a single passage in the speech -- a 600-year-old quotation -- which, if misrepresented in a sufficiently sleazy way in their headlines and leads, and followed by hints that Muslims should riot, would soon have the desired effect. Given the "inverted pyramid" form of journalistic presentation, they could cover themselves later in the story, by factually qualifying the impression left by the lead -- that the pope had intentionally made an incendiary, anti-Islamic remark. The damage would already be done, and they needn't fear their qualification would limit it.

Ditto with their more recent, profoundly sleazy reporting, which likewise spread at electronic speed through the rest of the MSM. A very careful perusal of the whole story, in its original and most sophisticated version, would leave the reader in little doubt of the pope's innocence. But people do not read the media; they "watch" or scan it. And anyone merely watching or scanning could be forgiven for thinking the pope had intentionally lifted an excommunication from a "British" "bishop," in the full knowledge that he was a Holocaust denier. In other words, the Panzer Pope was being openly anti-Semitic.

The various liberal (and, in particular, liberal Jewish) "human rights" organizations were quick to run with this slander, and within 24 hours I had poorly informed Jewish friends forwarding to me a petition from the Simon Wiesenthal Centre that made the BBC's original report look honest by comparison. The beauty of the slander, from the point of view of its perpetrators, was that explaining what had actually happened would take quite a few sentences more than the sound bite for which the contemporary media audience has patience.

Needless to say -- or rather, it should be needless to say -- that the lifting of the excommunications on four bishops the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre appointed after he had broken with Rome had nothing whatever to do with the political and historical views of any of them. While it could perhaps be fairly argued that Vatican bureaucrats should have vetted the men for "other misdemeanors" before exposing the pope to this "media row," it was clear enough from the beginning that Benedict himself had no idea about Richard Williamson's abhorrent "take" on the Nazi death camps -- in which were murdered, among millions of others, René Lefebvre, the very father of the founder of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X.

Read the rest here.

Left is destroying Church, says rabbi

ROME, February 11, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The dissident, leftist movement in the Catholic Church over the last forty years has severely undermined the teaching of the Catholic Church on the moral teachings on life and family, a prominent US Orthodox rabbi told LifeSiteNews.com. Rabbi Yehuda Levin, the head of a group of 800 Orthodox rabbis in the US and Canada, also dismissed the accusations that the Holy See had not sufficiently distanced itself from the comments made by Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) on the Holocaust.

"I support this move" to reconcile the traditionalist faction in the Church, he said, "because I understand the big picture, which is that the Catholic Church has a problem. There is a strong left wing of the Church that is doing immeasurable harm to the faith."

Rabbi Levin said that he understands "perfectly" why the reconciliation is vital to the fight against abortion and the homosexualist movement.

"I understand that it is very important to fill the pews of the Catholic Church not with cultural Catholics and left-wingers who are helping to destroy the Catholic Church and corrupt the values of the Catholic Church." This corruption, he said, "has a trickle-down effect to every single religious community in the world."

"What's the Pope doing? He's trying to bring the traditionalists back in because they have a lot of very important things to contribute the commonweal of Catholicism.

"Now, if in the process, he inadvertently includes someone who is prominent in the traditionalist movement who happens to say very strange things about the Holocaust, is that a reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater and start to condemn Pope Benedict? Absolutely not."

During a visit to Rome at the end of January, Rabbi Levin told LifeSiteNews.com that he believes the media furore over the lifting of the excommunications of the four bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X is a red herring. He called "ridiculous" the accusations that in doing so Pope Benedict VXI or the Catholic Church are anti-Semitic and described as "very strong" the statements distancing the Holy See and the Pope from Williamson's comments.

Read the rest here or here with Fr. Z's commentary.

Williamson hits a homerun in the Der Spiegel interview...

Bishop Richard Williamson's denial of the Holocaust has done serious damage to the Catholic Church. In an e-mail and fax exchange with SPIEGEL, the ultra-conservative bishop says that he is willing to "review the historical evidence."

SPIEGEL: The Vatican is demanding that you retract your denial of the Holocaust, and it is threatening to not allow you to resume your activities as a bishop. How will you react?

Williamson: Throughout my life, I have always sought the truth. That is why I converted to Catholicism and became a priest. And now I can only say something, the truth of which I am convinced. Because I realize that there are many honest and intelligent people who think differently, I must now review the historical evidence once again. I said the same thing in my interview with Swedish television: Historical evidence is at issue, not emotions. And if I find this evidence, I will correct myself. But that will take time.

SPIEGEL: How can an educated Catholic deny the Holocaust?

Williamson: I addressed the subject in the 1980s. I had read various writings at the time. I cited the Leuchter report (eds. note: a debunked theory produced in the 1980s claiming erroneously that the Nazi gas chambers were technically impractical) in the interview, and it seemed plausible to me. Now I am told that it has been scientifically refuted. I plan now to look into it.

SPIEGEL: You could travel to Auschwitz yourself.

Williamson: No, I will not travel to Auschwitz. I've ordered the book by Jean-Claude Pressac. It's called "Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers." A printout is now being sent to me, and I will read it and study it.

SPIEGEL: The Society of Saint Pius X has set an ultimatum for the end of February. Are you not risking a break with the group?

Williamson: In the Old Testament, the Prophet Jonah tells the sailors when their ship is in distress: " Take me up, and cast me forth into the sea; so shall the sea be calm unto you: for I know that for my sake this great tempest is upon you." The Society has a religious mission that is suffering because of me. I will now examine the historic evidence. If I do not find it convincing, I will do everything in my power to avoid inflicting any further harm on the Church and the Society.

SPIEGEL: What does the repeal of the excommunication by Pope Benedict XVI mean to you?

Williamson: We just want to be Catholic, nothing else. We have not developed our own teachings, but are merely preserving the things that the Church has always taught and practiced. And in the sixties and seventies, when everything was changed in the name of this Council (eds. note: the Second Vatican Council), it was suddenly a scandal. As a result, we were forced to the margins of the church, and now that empty churches and an aging clergy make it clear that these changes were a failure, we are returning to the center. That's the way it is for us conservatives: we are proved right, as long as we wait long enough.

SPIEGEL: People at the Vatican claimed that they didn't know you. Is that true?

Williamson: Most contacts pass through Bishop Fellay and the General Council, of which I am not a member. But three of us four bishops attended a private dinner with Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos in 2000. It was more about getting to know each other, but we certainly talked about theological issues and even a bit of philosophy. The cardinal was very friendly.

SPIEGEL: The Second Vatican Council counts as one of the great achievements of the Catholic Church. Why do you not fully recognize it?

Williamson: It is absolutely unclear what we are supposed to recognize. An important document is called "Gaudium et spes," or Joy and Hope. In it, the writers rhapsodize about the ability of mass tourism to bring people together. But one can hardly expect a conservative society to embrace package tours. It discusses fears and hardships. And then a nuclear war between the superpowers is mentioned. You see, much of this is already outdated. These Council documents are always ambiguous. Because no one knew what exactly this was supposed to mean, everyone started doing as he wished shortly after the Council. This has resulted in this theological chaos we have today. What are we supposed to recognize, the ambiguity or the chaos?

SPIEGEL: Are you actually aware that you are dividing the Church with your extreme views?

Williamson: Only violation of the dogmas, that is, the infallible principles, destroys faith. The Second Vatican Council declared that it would proclaim no new dogmas. Today the liberal bishops act as though it were some sort of all-encompassing super-dogma, and they use it as justification for a dictatorship of relativism. This contradicts the texts of the Council.

SPIEGEL: Your position on Judaism is consistently anti-Semitic.

Williamson: St. Paul put it this way: The Jews are beloved for the sake of Our Father, but our enemies for the sake of the gospel.

SPIEGEL: Do you seriously intend to use Catholic tradition and the Bible to justify your anti-Semitism?

Williamson: Anti-Semitism means many things today, for instance, when one criticizes the Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip. The Church has always understood the definition of anti-Semitism to be the rejection of Jews because of their Jewish roots. This is condemned by the Church. Incidentally, this is self-evident in a religion whose founders and all important individuals in its early history were Jews. But it was also clear, because of the large number of Jewish Christians in early Christianity, that all men need Christ for their salvation -- all men, including the Jews.

SPIEGEL: The pope will travel to Israel soon, where he plans to visit the Holocaust Memorial. Are you also opposed to this?

Williamson: Making a pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a great joy for Christians. I wish the Holy Father all the best on his journey. What troubles me about Yad Vashem is that Pope Pius XII is attacked there, even though no one saved more Jews during the Nazi period than he did. For instance, he had baptismal certificates issued for persecuted Jews to protect them against arrest. These facts have been distorted to mean exactly the opposite. Otherwise, I hope that the pope will also have an eye and a heart for the women and children who were injured in the Gaza Strip, and that he will speak out in support of the Christian population in Bethlehem, which is now walled in.

SPIEGEL: Your statements have caused great injury and outrage in the Jewish world. Why don't you apologize?

Williamson: If I realize that I have made an error, I will apologize. I ask every human being to believe me when I say that I did not deliberately say anything untrue. I was convinced that my comments were accurate, based on my research in the 1980s. Now I must review everything again and look at the evidence.

SPIEGEL: Do you at least recognize universal human rights?

Williamson: When human rights were declared in France, hundreds of thousands were killed throughout France. Where human rights are considered an objective order for the state to implement, there are constantly anti-Christian policies. When it comes to preserving the individual's freedom of conscience against the democratic state, then human rights perform an important function. The individual needs these rights against a country that behaves like a Leviathan. But the Christian concept of the state is a different one, so that the Christian theories of human rights emphasize that freedom is not an end in itself. The point is not freedom from something, but freedom for something. For good.

SPIEGEL: Your statements and the lifting of your excommunication have triggered protests worldwide. Can you understand this?

Williamson: A single interview on Swedish television has dominated the news for weeks in Germany. Yes, it does surprise me. Is this the case with all violations of the law in Germany? Hardly. No, I am only the tool here, so that action can be taken against the SSPX and the pope. Apparently Germany's leftist Catholicism has not yet forgiven Ratzinger for becoming pope.