The Times on the Church

Like Michael, I read with interest Ian Fisher's May 1 article in The New York Times, "Debate Over Condoms and AIDS Tests the Pope."  And, I agree with Michael and the many other MOJ-folks who have posted recently that the article raises interesting, important, and challenging questions about the Church's teaching on contraception.  That said, isn't the Fisher article almost embarrassing in how ham-handedly it frames the issues? 

Even at the Vatican, not all sacred beliefs are absolute. Thou shalt not kill, but there is still "just" war. Now, behind the quiet Vatican walls, a clash is shaping up between two poles of near-certainty: the church's long-held ban on condom use and its advocacy of human life.

Ugh.  Next, Fisher trots out the Cardinal Ratzinger as "strict enforcer of doctrine" business.  This must be in the Times' style manual (right next to "remember, the Catholic Church issues 'edicts'").  Whatever.  Later, Fisher notes that the Pope Benedict (you know, the "strict enforcer") wrote his first encyclical on love (and not "strict enforcement of doctrine"!  Wow!), "specifically between a man and a woman inside marriage."  Of course, that's not really what DCE  is about.  But never mind.

Fisher then notes that "critics of the current Vatican policy say it is hard for the church to remain consistent on 'life' issues [rg:  why the scare quotes?] . . . when condom use can help prevent the spread of AIDS."  Really?  Even one who struggles with the Church's teaching on contraception -- as, I am happy to admit, one very well might -- need not concede any "inconsistency" between the Church's teaching that (a) it is immoral intentionally to kill a human being and (b) some actions are immoral, even if engaging in them could save lives.

None of this is to suggest, for a moment, that the discussion we are having about the questions raised in the Fisher piece is anything but important and engaging.  Nor is it to say anything about whether the Church can or should change its teachings (or, rather, revise its application of those teachings) with respect to condom use.  Still, it needs to be said.  When it comes to the Church, the Times is fascinated but (at best) clumsy and clueless.

UPDATE:  It's worse than I thought.  (Thanks to "Get Religion").