HeadlineBistro

Chaput, Obama and the Pope's Prayer Intentions

If you have time for a longer read today, go over to Pew Forum’s transcript of a forum from earlier this month featuring Denver’s Archbishop Charles Chaput.

Answering journalists’ questions on Communion, declining Mass attendance and the merits of “Faithful Citizenship” (the USCCB document used by some to justify voting for a pro-abortion candidate), Archbishop Chaput’s engaging and personable approach to members of the media simply shines – even while urging those present to “please tell your friends in the newsroom” to cover religion fairly and with integrity.

On a similar note, Carl Anderson of the Knights of Columbus recently criticized the media’s poor – if not outright biased – coverage of the papal trip to Africa. Defending Pope Benedict XVI’s belief that faith in condoms alone will not stem the AIDS crisis, Anderson wrote in the op/ed that “Pope Benedict believes that people are capable of choosing to do the right thing. His critics do not.”

“Instead of receiving fair treatment by the media,” Anderson continued, “Pope Benedict has often been the victim of a game of ‘gotcha’ in which isolated sound bites – not his message – become the story as some reporters and commentators accept his critics’ opinions – uncritically.”

****

In case you missed it in U.S. news – on the slate for the Obama administration is the massive restructuring of not only the nation’s financial system, but, if yesterday’s GM ouster is a clue, American business as a whole. (And other bailed-out firms are, understandably, on edge).

Politico delivers a rather forceful story on Obama's unprecedented moves to regulate financial companies – including the power to seize those deemed too risky, whether or not they received bailouts – set up a $1 trillion public-private investment plan to buy banks’ toxic assets and adamantly insist upon taking out the leadership of an iconic American company as a condition for government aid.

From the article:

Taken alone, the moves are remarkable. Taken together, they amount to a major exercise of presidential power — the imperial presidency applied to the economy to a sweeping degree not seen in decades.

“The message from the Obama administration to the auto industry is loud and clear: Restructure or die,” Harvard Business School’s Rosabeth Moss Kanter said in POLITICO’s Arena discussion. “If the government invests or lends, then, like any bank or investment group, it can demand accountable leadership that can deliver performance.”

Speaking of the economy, President Obama heads to Europe this week for the G-20 summit and meetings with NATO leaders and heads of state. And while the president certainly remains popular abroad (with even higher ratings than at home in some cases), he’s facing skepticism from various European camps on how the U.S. has handled the economic crisis. Even the German news source Der Spiegel is noting how “Europe’s Obama Euphoria Wanes” as diplomats, military leaders, politicians and economists ponder what the change in administration will mean for them.

****

To wrap up, the Vatican announced Pope Benedict XVI’s prayer intentions for April today:

VATICAN CITY, 31 MAR 2009 (VIS) - Pope Benedict's general prayer intention for April is: "That the Lord may bless farmers' work with an abundant harvest and sensitise the richer populations to the drama of hunger in the world."

His mission intention is: "That the Christians who operate in the territories where the conditions of the poor, the weak and the women and children are most tragic, may be signs of hope, thanks to their courageous testimony to the Gospel of solidarity and love.”

Weekend wrap

Over the weekend:

• Dr. Edward Green’s research on HIV and Africa has been the focus recently of supporters of Pope Benedict XVI’s now-famous comments on the ineffectiveness of condoms in stopping the AIDS epidemic. On Sunday, the Harvard researcher finally spoke out with his own op/ed in the Washington Post on why “The Pope May Be Right” with that assertion.

While acknowledging that “we liberals who work in the fields of global HIV/AIDS and family planning take terrible professional risks if we side with the pope” on such a divisive topic, Green cites multiple studies that show condoms have failed as a primary intervention in Africa’s population-wide epidemic.

There’s a refreshing taste of honesty in his call for real, “more evidence-based” solutions to Africa’s AIDS crisis, and his article is a must read, along with Carl Anderson’s column on the same topic and Italian journalist Sandro Magister’s analysis on Pope Benedict’s enduring popularity.

• Meanwhile, the story of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visiting the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City can only make readers groan at its irony. According to the Catholic News Agency, Clinton admired the miraculous image on the tilma and asked the basilica’s rector, “Who painted it?” (The rector’s response: “God!”) She then told those gathered outside the church that they “have a marvelous virgin.”

As many Catholics know, Our Lady of Guadalupe has become a symbol of the pro-life movement, particularly as she is portrayed as pregnant with the unborn Jesus. The day after praising the image, however, Clinton was feted by Planned Parenthood, which gave her the Margaret Sanger Award – the abortion-provider’s highest honor.

• Closer to home -- in more ways than one -- a recent Gallup poll shows that over the past three years, many Catholics themselves have been confused about basic moral teachings of the Church, following instead the nation’s trend of considering issues such as abortion, embryonic stem cell research and homosexual relations as morally acceptable. Sadly, Catholics are even more liberal than American non-Catholics on some moral issues, such as premarital sex, divorce and having children outside of marriage.

Of course, when looking closer, the poll found a profound distinction between “committed,” Mass-going Catholics and those with irregular Mass attendance – as last fall’s Knights of Columbus poll on Catholic voters showed, as well. The difference was especially marked when asked about abortion; 24 percent of Catholics with regular church attendance said abortion was morally acceptable compared to 52 percent of Catholics who did not attend Mass regularly.

However, even fewer church-going non-Catholics – 19 percent – said abortion was morally acceptable.

Clearly, that leaves Catholics who strive to be faithful to the Church’s teachings with a heavy task, not only of reaching out to and influencing the culture around us, but also evangelizing those sitting in the pews – and inviting others to come back.

Good news on a Friday

How about some good news for the weekend? It’s certainly out there.

• By now you may have seen or heard of a groundbreaking, stirring television ad and Internet campaign called Catholics Come Home. The three television ads produced so far are all hard-hitting, with one majestically portraying the epic nature and history of the Catholic Church. They're so effective, however, that in the Diocese of Phoenix, which gave the ads a test run last year, an estimated 92,000 inactive Catholics were reported to have come back to church.

“The commercials helped (fallen-away Catholics) realize that they were missing something in their lives,” said the pastor of a Tempe, Ariz., parish that showed one of the videos before its Easter Masses and held a six-week program for returning Catholics.

As president and founder of Catholics Come Home, Tom Peterson said Phoenix “was supposed to be this quiet little test.”

The organization has plans to expand to other dioceses over the next couple years, as well as bring its ads – there are dozens more in the works, Peterson said – to the national networks by Advent 2010.

Needless to say, success stories like this and the CatholicVote.org videos that grabbed millions of views this past election season are excellent examples of the power of media used by the Church.
 
• The First Things blog highlighted an encouraging story in Georgia – the country, not the state – sure to bring a smile to our own readers. Apparently, the patriarch of the Georgian Orthodox Church decided to stem the country’s declining birth rate with an incentive the faithful could not refuse: he would personally baptize any new baby born to parents of more than two children.

The result? A nearly 20 percent increase in the Georgian birth rate in 2008 alone.

“To have a child baptized by the patriarch is so very special,” one Georgian mother told BBC. She and her husband conceived their fourth child, a son named Giviko, “because of the patriarch’s incentive.”

Patriarch Ilia II now conducts four mass baptisms a year in Tbilisi’s Sameba Cathedral, where thousands of relatives cram in to witness their revered religious leader bring their little ones into the Church.

• In the wake of the Notre Dame-Obama uproar, Pennsylvania’s Sen. Bob Casey, Jr., who is Catholic and has had a pro-abortion voting record, quietly dropped his own speaking engagement at another Catholic college’s commencement ceremonies this spring.

The school, St. Vincent College in Latrobe, Penn., said the senator offered “no reason” why he would be unable to speak.

This year, however, Sen. Casey received a sternly-worded letter from Scranton Bishop Joseph Martino regarding his vote against the protection of the Mexico City Policy. The bill was in response to President Obama’s order to revoke the policy, thus freeing U.S. funds for overseas abortions.

“Senator, is not this vote a contradiction of your repeated claim that you support the protection of unborn life?” Bishop Martino wrote.

Patrick Reilly, president of the Cardinal Newman Society, said that given that background, as well as the current backlash against Notre Dame for its invitation to President Obama, “it is probably a blessing to St. Vincent College that Sen. Casey is not available to speak.”

• Finally, this article’s topic shouldn’t be news to frequent readers of Headline Bistro, but the fact that breakthroughs in non-embryonic stem cell research are getting such a positive article in a news source like Bloomberg is encouraging, indeed.

“Skin to Stem Cell Breakthrough Promises Health Care Revolution,” the headline proclaims, with the story focusing on scientists around the world who are excitedly pursuing stem cell research without the ethical burden of working with human embryos.

Read the article and send it to friends and family who are advocating embryonic stem cell research but might not know where science is actually leading us – away from methods from destroy human life in order to save others. The facts are on our side.

Defining our words

We’ve seen the power of definitions before.

For thousands upon thousands of years, for example, the definition of “marriage” has been understood to be a union between a man and a woman. Not until recently has that definition been challenged, and, as we know, that challenge comes from proponents of same-sex marriage.

It may seem small compared to the massive legal battles fought in California and other states, but when even dictionaries begin to accept “evolving meanings of marriage” – that’s something very telling about our culture, indeed.

Or take a recently tabled attempt in Connecticut to allow for physician-assisted suicide – except that legislators didn’t want people to call it that.

Knowing the power of words and people’s connotations with certain terms, the bill instructed that public agencies shall not call the procedure "assisted suicide", but “shall refer to such practice as ‘obtaining and self-administering life-ending medication to end a qualified patient’s life in a humane and dignified manner.’”

Does such a seemingly gentle phrase – one that doesn’t even mention the word “death” – hide its insidious meaning? No, but it tries, and it makes physician-assisted suicide that much more palatable to an uninformed ear.

Turning our attention to even more recent news, the controversy over the FDA and whether Plan B should be made available to minor girls hinges upon whether the morning after pill can act as an abortifacient.

While even science is unsure of how exactly Plan B works – whether it acts as a contraceptive, preventing fertilization from occurring, or an interceptive, preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the mother’s body (or both) – the makers of the pill insist that Plan B does not cause an abortion. And they justify this claim with their definition of abortion: an act that destroys only an implanted embryo.

Finally, here’s perhaps the most sobering – and scary – example of what society will allow based on a misleading definition: a provocative article in U.S. News and World Report on whether President Obama’s embryonic stem cell order opened the door to human cloning.

Religion reporter Dan Gilgoff makes the distinction between reproductive cloning – which Obama forswore when he signed the stem cell executive order – and therapeutic cloning – on which the president was silent, and which could very well benefit from the federal funds his order opened up.

Indeed, a New York Times editorial called for even further embryonic research, including somatic cell nuclear transfer – a cloning process to create embryos that are later destroyed for their stem cells. First Things pointed out that the paper was “Endorsing Cloning, Without Calling it That.”

Here’s Gilgoff’s summation of the issue:

Some religious groups argue that regardless of whether the embryos are created for research or for reproduction, it is cloning. But the cloned embryos have never been implanted in a woman's uterus, and researchers say that they are unlikely to develop into viable fetuses even if they were. Scientists generally don't consider the process to be human cloning. After all, nothing resembling a human being is ever produced.

Princeton University Professor Robert P. George, a member of Bush’s Council on Bioethics, is quoted in the article saying, “‘Reproductive cloning’ is a misleading term. … It refers not to cloning itself but rather to what one does or intends to do with the clone, i.e., the embryonic human being created by cloning.”

While the president, and much of the nation, maintains firm opposition to cloning for reproductive purposes, we must ask what makes a “clone and kill” approach any more permissible.

Otherwise, we’ve launched ourselves headfirst into an ethically dubious position, to say the least, without even settling on a basic definition of the action we’re allowing.

Pushing Plan B

In all the recent Notre Dame controversy, one government action that shouldn’t slip under the radar is a federal judge’s order this week that the FDA reconsider its age limits on the morning-after “Plan B” pill.

U.S. District Judge Edward Korman of New York criticized the FDA for what he called an “arbitrary and capricious” decision on the drug that came from bowing to “political and ideological” arguments from the Bush White House.

A quote from the president of the Center for Reproductive Rights clues us in to the significance of the ruling:

“The court has vindicated our claim that the Bush administration’s FDA was playing political games with women’s health,” said Nancy Northup. “The judge’s opinion makes clear that the FDA should have put medical science first and left politics at the door.” 

Sound familiar? That theme of “putting science first” was replete in President Obama’s address when he ordered funding for embryonic stem cell research with taxpayers’ dollars – an action, he said, based on “facts, not ideology.”

Rejecting what he called “a false choice between sound science and moral values,” the president argued that to pursue embryo-destructive research is a responsible means to ease suffering.

And just last night during his prime-time press conference, Obama told reporters that while he wishes to avoid controversy, he is following “where the science leads us.”

“What I don’t want to do is predetermine this based on a very rigid ideological approach,” he said, “and that’s what I think is reflected in the executive order that I signed.”

Never mind that leading embryonic stem cell researchers are turning their attention toward safer, more productive studies that do not involve the destruction of human embryos. Proponents of embryonic stem cell research -- or in the case, of wider access to a pill that can cause the death of a newly conceived child -- can distance themselves all they want from “rigid” ideology, but what they actually promote is just that – a scientific ideology that refuses even the most basic understanding of ethics.

The Washington Post story on the Plan B order devotes one, last line to the problem of conscience pharmacists might face if forced to distribute Plan B to underage girls – reminding us that this type of championing of scientific “progress” inevitably leads to the trumping of moral convictions.

Once again, the "pro-choice" worldview has gotten even more narrow.

Concerning news to start off the week

For a Tuesday, there’s already a fair amount of news giving Catholics reason for consternation.

First, in the still-developing Notre Dame “scandal” story, the university’s voicemail inboxes were reportedly jammed yesterday with protests against the school’s decision to give President Obama an honorary doctorate in law and invite him to deliver the commencement address in May.

Notre Dame president Fr. John Jenkins told the university’s student newspaper that the president “honored” Notre Dame by accepting their invitation, and that he could not “foresee circumstances” that would cause him to rescind the invitation.

Pointing out that the university has a tradition of inviting U.S. presidents to speak on campus, Fr. Jenkins stressed that the invitation to President Obama is not an endorsement of his views on abortion, embryonic stem cell research and other similar issues.

Still, petitions are rapidly filling, columnists are criticizing and the bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend is expected to make a statement on the situation this morning.

 “Notre Dame has clouded what should be clear, and deeply disappointed not just her usual critics, but also those of us who want very much for her to succeed (and work hard to help her succeed),” wrote Notre Dame law professor Richard Garnett in National Review Online’s symposium of Catholic leaders on the issue.

Meanwhile, a week after the head of the U.S. bishops’ conference met with President Obama and discussed ways in which the Church and government can work together on issues such as poverty, healthcare reform and immigration, the USCCB is yet making clear which issues it will not back down from: in this case, protection of health workers’ freedom of conscience.

(Indeed, Catholic scholar and author George Weigel pointed out that Notre Dame’s honoring of Obama flies in the face of the country’s bishops, who are currently working against his administration on this issue of conscience protection).

Catholic News Service has the story on the bishops’ legal reasons for keeping current Health and Human Services conscience regulations in place.

Currently, HHS is holding a 30-day comment period on whether to rescind President Bush’s last-minute rule protecting health workers who object to participating in abortions or other procedures, citing their own religious or moral values.

Speaking of HHS, the Washington Times religion section has a story on pro-abortion Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and many Catholics’ critical response to her nomination to head the department that oversees regulations on conscience protection, abortion restrictions and more.

Back in her role as Kansas’ governor, Sebelius – who is Catholic, and who has been asked by her bishop not to present herself for Communion – has yet to sign into law a bill requiring women who request an abortion to view ultrasound images of their babies. This bill sailed through the state’s legislative branch, but as of last week, Sebelius’ office was giving no indication on whether she’ll veto it.

Finally, with the passage of a same-sex marriage bill in Vermont’s Senate yesterday, similar legislation allowing same-sex marriage is gaining a strong hold in the New England region. New Hampshire and Maine are the next states to hold a vote and hearing, respectively, on the issue, inching gay rights activists closer to their goal of legalized same-sex marriage throughout the region by 2012.

Pro-abortion politicians, same-sex marriage bills and pro-life doctors and nurses threatened with charges of discrimination -- where does all that leave Catholics? With prayer, action and a committment to stay informed of these and other issues that matter to them -- as well as a reminder that our witness to life and love is more valuable than ever in our society.

Weekend wrap

• In Angola, Pope Benedict celebrated Sunday Mass for hundreds of thousands of people who trekked to the outskirts of the capital city to see him. Touching on Angola’s violent history – including a 27-year civil war – the pope exhorted the entire continent to resist the “clouds of evil” that threaten Africa.

These “clouds” include war, tribalism and hatred, the pope said, but also abortion, sexual irresponsibility and the “insidious spirit of selfishness.”

At a youth rally the day before, Pope Benedict urged those present to shape the future through their encounter with God. As he did at the Mass, the pontiff warned against seeking fulfillment in “the dominant social culture,” which he called “individualistic and hedonistic.”

• The White House is defending its plan to purchase toxic assets and work with other firms to do so, with the Treasury expected to release details of that plan today. Some fear no firms will want to risk wading into the government’s program, especially with recent public outcry against government bailouts and Wall Street in general, fueled by the revelation of bailed-out AIG’s millions of dollars’ worth of bonuses.

The issue of those bonuses has touched upon a chord of populist fury, to say the least, to the point of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner calling for increased regulations on financial companies’ bonus systems – even for companies who have not received government bail-out funds. Likewise, the House of Representatives passed a bill meant to tax such bonuses by 90 percent, and the Senate is currently grappling with a version of its own. Congress’ actions have received criticism that the bills are unconstitutional, an abuse of Congress’ power to tax and will not aid economic recovery.

• President Obama will deliver the commencement address this spring at the University of Notre Dame – an announcement that has drawn much criticism from the Catholic university’s community.

While acknowledging the honor of hosting President Obama, the head of the school’s Right to Life club called the invitation “a slap in the face” for graduating students who don’t support Obama’s views on abortion and other life issues.

“They have been at Notre Dame for four years working for this diploma and here is someone speaking at your graduation who you fundamentally don’t agree with,” the club leader said.

In addition to delivering the commencement address, the president will also be given an honorary doctorate in law.

One initiative among current students is a petition that the university “reiterate its commitment to the teachings of the Church and the sanctity of life” with a public statement, thus “distancing … the University from (the president’s) views.”

Even more forthrightly, veteran ND faculty member Ralph McInerny has written a scathing criticism of the university’s invitation.

“By inviting Barack Obama as commencement speaker, Notre Dame is telling the nation that the teaching of the Catholic church on this fundamental matter (of abortion) can be ignored,” McInerny wrote, concluding that the school has “forfeited its right to call itself a Catholic university.”

True Hope for Africa

“‘Hoping against hope,’” Pope Benedict said, quoting St. Paul in his homily yesterday in Cameroon. “Is this not a magnificent description of a Christian? Africa is called to hope through you and in you! With Jesus Christ, who trod the African soil, African can become the continent of hope!”

In case you can’t tell from that quote alone, the pope’s last homily to Cameroon before heading off to Angola today was stirring, loving and full of challenging encouragement for a nation with its share of struggles.

On the tempting “tyranny of materialism,” Pope Benedict warned that the whole continent of Africa would be at risk if it allowed itself to be “captivated by selfish illusions and false ideals,” not recognizing God as “the True Author of Life.”

The pope called on the nation to continue its strong defense of life – Cameroon does not allow abortions – and exhorted the people packed into Yaoundé Stadium to look to St. Joseph, whose feast was yesterday, for guidance in their marriages and roles as parents.

He concluded his homily with an address to children, particularly Africa’s orphans and those abandoned by their parents or forced into warfare.

“God loves you, he has not forgotten you, and Saint Joseph protects you!” Pope Benedict said. “Invoke him with confidence.”

It’s a pitiful loss that most of the media – African press and Catholic sources aside – have completely missed this part of the pope’s journey, choosing to focus instead on his belief that the ultimate solution to AIDS is a conversion of hearts, not distribution of condoms.

We’ve been through a political season filled with expressions of hope across the world, resonating especially in the heart of Africa. One would think a world-renowned leader giving the continent possibly the greatest, most encouraging message of hope it’s received in recent memory would warrant more attention.

In other Church news, a rumor developing in the Polish press sparks hope for those awaiting the beatification of former Pope John Paul II: according to the newspaper Dziennik, the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints has already set the beatification date for April 2, 2010, the five-year anniversary of the pontiff’s death.

Pope John Paul II’s beatification process has been on the fast track since Pope Benedict XVI waived the typical five-year waiting period after one’s death before a cause for canonization can be opened.

Suffering, Stem Cells and the NY Times' Call for Cloning

Interesting medical news on Headline Bistro recently.

According to research published yesterday in the Journal of the American Medical Association, religious patients are three times more likely than others to seek more rigorous treatment to life-threatening or terminal diseases, even if it means lengthening their already arduous and painful time of suffering.

This includes decisions to get hooked up to a ventilator or receive CPR if their heart stops.

The study’s senior author put it this way: “There’s a sense that by not going for life-prolonging care, they’re letting God down. … But the more aggressive care you get, the worse your quality of life in that last week.”

The LA Times article focuses mainly on patients’ holding out for the possibility of a miracle – which makes sense, but only up to a point, it would seem. Does nothing more than guilty religious feelings keep patients persevering?

Of course, the Catholic Church believes in medical miracles and even sanctions them (Lourdes being an obvious example).

But when the hoped-for, miraculous disappearance of a tumor does not occur, and a patient is instead left in agony in the last days of life, it seems that a decision to continue to wait on God’s timing – and not literally pull the plug – runs deeper than religious optimism.

One nurse quoted by the LA Times mentions the value that some of her patients see in suffering itself – “Well, God suffered. Jesus suffered. So if I suffer, it’s going to make me more like God,” she said as a summing up of their views.

That quote, too, risks oversimplifying patients’ motives for embracing life-extending treatments, but it hits at a truth: There is a rich, profound connection between the suffering we experience and that endured by Christ as He won our salvation on the Cross.

For now, let’s set aside the Church’s nuanced teachings on end-of-life issues. (For the record, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states in sections 2278-2279 that “discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate” and that medication meant to “alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days” can be in conformity with human dignity – as long as death is not willed as an end or means. In other words: as long as euthanasia is not the intent).

The point is, when patients choose for religious reasons to hold out on life, even in the midst of tremendous suffering, they become stirring witnesses to a world that deems a life of suffering not worth living.

Or, on the flip side, the world’s prescription for relieving some people’s suffering is to destroy the lives of others.

Earlier this week, the National Catholic Register linked to an incredible story on a man suffering from ALS – also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. Despite having a very real stake in the potentials of such research, Jim McKevitt, a Catholic, is appalled at the prospect of sacrificing human lives for the sake of restoring his.

“If experimenting on just one embryo would lead to a cure for me, I absolutely would not do it,” he said. “It’s murder of a human being.”

Finally, to wrap up the medical news on the topic of stem cells, a team of scientists in Massachusetts has taken a huge step forward in non-embryonic stem cell research.

While experimenting with induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) – reprogrammed cells taken from an adult patient – the scientists discovered a way to remove genes in iPS cells that were potentially cancer-causing.

What this breakthrough amounts to, then, is an efficient and much safer way to work with these non-embryonic stem cells, leading to the goal of transplanting them into damaged parts of a patient’s body.

In all the recent media hype over President Obama’s easing of restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, what happens to stories like the two above? They get buried underneath other articles like this NY Times editorial calling for even broader liberalization of embryo-destructive research – even to the point of cloning.

That grim example alone should be enough to shake us up and increase our efforts to defend life.

As the discoverer of embryonic stem cells himself has said, “If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough.”  

The Civilization of Love Comes to Africa

Of all the words and actions coming from the pope on his trip to Africa this week, the media has predictably grabbed on to one line about condoms and AIDS.

The tragedy of AIDS, the pope said on his plane in answer to a journalist’s question, is one that “cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem.”

That controversy over the Church’s stand against the contraceptive method – and championing of abstinence and fidelity, instead – has sprung up so early into the papal visit is not entirely surprising. Neither is the slew of headlines implying that the leader of the Catholic Church must be woefully ignorant in order to reject condom distribution as a sure-fire method of combating the epidemic. (Never mind the success rates of African regions that have stressed abstinence and monogamy in their campaigns against AIDS).

An actual reading of Pope Benedict XVI’s words, though, including his address on arrival in Cameroon yesterday afternoon, reveals why he firmly believes that the world’s prescription is not the answer: because the Church offers so much more.

John Allen writes that, while the condom quote got the attention of Western media, the entirety of the pope’s message is already resonating among Africans themselves.

Here’s an excerpt from Pope Benedict’s first address in Cameroon, in which it’s clear he understands the difficult and too-often tragic circumstances on the entire continent that make up the context of his visit:

Here in Africa, as in so many parts of the world, countless men and women long to hear a word of hope and comfort. Regional conflicts leave thousands homeless or destitute, orphaned or widowed. In a continent which, in times past, saw so many of its people cruelly uprooted and traded overseas to work as slaves, today human trafficking, especially of defenseless women and children, has become a new form of slavery. At a time of global food shortages, financial turmoil, and disturbing patterns of climate change, Africa suffers disproportionately: more and more of her people are falling prey to hunger, poverty, and disease. They cry out for reconciliation, justice and peace, and that is what the Church offers them. Not new forms of economic or political oppression, but the glorious freedom of the children of God (cf. Rom 8:21). Not the imposition of cultural models that ignore the rights of the unborn, but the pure healing water of the Gospel of life. Not bitter interethnic or interreligious rivalry, but the righteousness, peace and joy of God’s kingdom, so aptly described by Pope Paul VI as the civilization of love.

As the Vicar of Christ, Pope Benedict is seeking to bring true freedom to Africa. In his address, he contrasts this to “new forms of economic or political oppression,” but he could have easily added the sexual ideology that demands little if anything from men and women to the list of systems that have only brought despair to Africa’s people.

And lest anyone protest that the pope is avoiding the physical needs of people, he’s also made a point to highlight the extensive work of Catholic charities among the poorest and most vulnerable in African society – including those suffering of AIDS.

The Good Samaritan is alive and well in Africa, caring for people’s physical needs and upholding their human dignity. It’s a mission that complements and flows from Christ’s gift of freedom, as the pope so beautifully describes.

As critics throw a fit that Pope Benedict will not hold to a lesser vision of Christ’s promise and Man’s destiny, let us remember what he does offer to a young, vibrant and hopeful culture: a true civilization of love.