I’m not against a rational argument in favor of same-sex relations. Rational discussions force us all to better understand our own convictions and those of others.

That said, a rational conversation needs to use objective, not imagined, facts. Thiscommentaryfrom Diogenes makes the point in a brilliantly sardonic way. Maybe I just needed to laugh, but I found it hilarious. Hope you enjoy regardless of your perspective on same-sex relations.

Bono has a great column honoring Sargent Shriver (RIP) in today’s NYT. (H/TMary DeTurris Proust)

It’s a beautiful testament to Shriver’s work (who was, btw, the last pro-life Democrat to run on a national ticket) and, more importantly, his faith and life.

His faith demanded action, from him, from all of us. For the Word to become flesh, we had to become the eyes, the ears, the hands of a just God. Injustice could, in the words of the old spiritual, “Be Overcome.” Robert Sargent sang, “Make me a channel of your peace,” and became the song.

This week, pro-lifers around the U.S. are commemorating the anniversary of Roe and Doe with various forms of peaceful demonstrations. In some ways we’re better off than in other parts of the world where abortion is not even a legitimate discussion.

But we’re still unable, for the most part, to have a rational conversation about a controversial topic. And this is largely what freedom of speech is about – being able to speak freely on all matters, including those of conscience, as I wrote in mycolumn this week.

After a conversation with a friend in the UK who’s beensuspended from her job for sharing a pamphlet on post-abortion effects with a colleague, I realized that the abortion issue is secondary insofar as there’s a more primary concern if we can’t speak about it. Then, we can’t function as a democracy.

And what does that say about democracy building in other parts of the world when we ourselves are failing in an essential aspect of democracy?

Lately I’ve been musing/ranting about Advent and Christmas prep. While I think it’s great to give to charities and help out with charitable projects, I also think it important to make sure that we have time to be charitable towards those closest to us and towards those whom we know. Again, I’m not dismissing any type of charitable projects; just thinking back on many cases of charity that I know which would never have attracted the attention of giving trees, food pantries, and other large scale operations.

So back to Advent. I also started thinking about the Marian feasts celebrated in December and the fact that they all point to preparation for the parents, especially the mother, of Jesus. At the same time fewer and fewer families are enjoying the gift of good parents.

Here’s my latest column building on this idea a bit.

Dialogue in the world of Don Camillo & Peppone

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

Specifically:

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

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

My unofficial translation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, it’s never dull. At the press conference to release the new book Light of the World, Fr. Lombardi made some “clarifications.” [I’ve posted a link and excerpt below.]

I’m not sure why Fr. Lombardi chose to jump into the fray with this. There’s much more in the book that deserves comment besides the Pope’s reiteration of the Church’s teaching on condoms. Yes, he give the example of a male prostitute who uses a condom as a form of “moral awakening” but that’s not saying that it’s a lesser evil. Ethics and morality in the Catholic Church are not about “well, if you must do it, then….” In the example of the male prostitute, the Pope is saying that if the prostitute recognizes the implicit danger in the risk of getting or spreading HIV/AIDS, then maybe he’ll begin to realize that there are other things that are at odds with being a prostitute, male or otherwise.

Admittedly, the Catholic Church struggles with PR, communications, messaging, etc. But the content remains the same, unchanged after 2000 years; not because it’s outdated but because it’s true for the human situation regardless of historical contexts.

Is Church teaching difficult to understand or communicate at times? Yep. Does that change the teaching, no?

Meanwhile, I still think it’s worth looking at Benedict’s thoughts on other topics in the book. And I’d welcome a conversation on the “humanization of sexuality,” his answer to HIV/AIDS and other personal matters. I think we might find that we all have more in common than we realized.

From AP:

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, told reporters Tuesday that he asked the pope whether he intended his comments to only apply to male prostitutes. Benedict replied that it really didn’t matter, that the important thing was the person in question took into consideration the life of the other, Lombardi said.

“I personally asked the pope if there was a serious, important problem in the choice of the masculine over the feminine,” Lombardi said. “He told me no. The problem is this … It’s the first step of taking responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk of the life of another with whom you have a relationship.”

“This is if you’re a woman, a man, or a transsexual. We’re at the same point,” Lombardi said.

The pope is not justifying or condoning gay sex or heterosexual sex outside of a marriage. Elsewhere in the book he reaffirms the Vatican opposition to homosexual acts and artificial contraception and reaffirms the inviolability of marriage between man and woman.

But by broadening the condom comments to also apply to women, the pope is saying that condom use in heterosexual relations is the lesser evil than passing HIV onto a partner.

A conversation between Rocky and his manager in Rocky II:

Gazo: How’s about investing in condominiums? It’s safe.

Rocky: Condominiums?

Gazo: Yeah, condominiums.

…Rocky: I never use ’em.

Just had a conversation with a friend of mine who’s familiar with the new interview book with the Pope, and we were laughing (albeit dryly) about the fact that there’s a whole lot more in Light of the World than condoms and it’s all far more interesting.

Some fun personal stuff:

– Benedict does NOT use the exercise bicycle set up for him.

– He watches the news.

– Favorite films: Two Suitcases: Story of St. Josephine Bakhita andan Italian movie seriesabout a fictional priest, Don Cammillo, and his archenemy the communist mayor Peppone.

– He wears a wristwatch from the 60s or 70s.

– He does not collect a salary.

The great thing about this new book, Light of the World, is that it makes clear to the world that Pope Benedict is not afraid to address difficult issues, even if people will disagree with him. In fact he expects disagreement: “If there had been nothing but approval, I would have had to ask myself seriously whether I was really proclaiming the whole Gospel.”

So who can forget the Regensburg address? As interviewer Peter Seewald notes, this lecture given on September 12, 2006, has been classified by some as “the first mistake of the pontificate.”