A "SAFER MORALITY"?
1. "The Pope hasn't created a new doctrine. But he has clarified something that's always been clear in the moral theology — that the Church is working in the defense of life."
2. "It's a big deal. If the Pope says that condoms are licit under certain circumstances, it opens up the debate as to what those circumstances are."
Broadly speaking, these two comments represent the principle reactions to the Holy Father's now legendary 'condom critique' in Light of the World, his book-length interview with Peter Seewald.
The first - typifying the neo-conservative response - is from a spokesman for the Sant'Egidio Community. A Catholic charity that provides antiretroviral medication to 100,000 HIV-positive patients in Africa, Sant'Egidio has never distributed condoms but provides counselling that includes information about their use. According to this line of thinking, since the Pope "hasn't created a new doctrine" the media storm is nothing to be alarmed about. In fact, the spokesman went on, the papal comments will "create a climate that is more relaxed for those engaged in the fight against the epidemic. It will be easier ... to help encourage responsible and effective behaviour to really fight AIDS." No big deal then.
Unsurprisingly, the Liberal Catholics In Name Only [CINOs], though equally grateful, beg to differ. Encapsulated in the second quote — from the editor of the Southern Cross, the house organ of the South African episcopate — CINOs view Benedict's exposition as a very "big deal."
Beyond these basic positions of 'big deal' vs 'no big deal', some neo-cons are of one mind with most traditionalists, who instantly understood that while indeed nothing has changed doctrinally (the Pope having merely expressed a personal view) everything has changed practically.
"A significant and positive step forward"
It is true that both the media (including L'Osservatore Romano which set the fireball rolling) and the Italian edition of the original German interview put key words and phrases into the Pope's mouth which he never uttered. As my introductory translation indicates, Benedict did not speak of "individual cases" or the "justification" or "morality" of condomic sex. Yet press reports had him saying: "It may be justified in individual cases, as when a (male) prostitute uses a condom, where this is a first step towards morality." While this is slovenly and appalling, such routine distortions of papal comments hardly matter, since the death-dealers and CINOs unfailingly hear what they want to hear. Always looking to shore up their degrading Liberal ideology at the expense of Magisterial teaching on sexual morality, mistranslations and misrepresentations of papal comments are of no account. As Benedict knows full well, the media, not the Catechism, is their point of reference. Hence his deliberate and imprudent provocation would inevitably hand them more than enough spurious rope to hang us all.
And so it did. On cue, our Liberal enemies within and without the Church trampled over context and nuance in their rush to laud the "change" they wanted to hear. Predictably, the most corrupt and dissolute Orders led the cheering hordes within. "We’re in a new world," said Fr Jon Fuller, a Jesuit and doctor at the Center for H.I.V./AIDS Care and Research at Boston Medical Center. He insisted that the Pope is "implicitly" saying "that you cannot anymore raise the objection that any use of the condom is an intrinsic evil." In the Philippines, a Columban missionary gushed: "We welcome the pope's change of opinion because it is meant to save life and to protect people. We see here an enlightened pope putting his concern over human life as a priority first."
A 72-year-old Philippino housewife wearing rosaries around her neck spouted similar pearls of naturalistic wisdom (doubtless acquired from Columbans and Jesuits). "The pope has become more practical; he knows what's happening to the world," she said knowingly. "There are contagious diseases and very high population growth that need to be controlled."
Notably absent from these and other Social Gospel commentaries was any mention of the supernatural life of souls and spiritual maladies endangering their salvation. (Indeed the Pope himself failed to mention "sin" or "mortal sin" during his condomic reflection, a telling point we will revisit.)
Elsewhere, the United Nations could hardly contain its delight. Its leading condom/abortion/sterilisation agency "welcomed the Pope's comments but cautioned they were only a first step toward making the use of condoms acceptable among Catholics. 'This is a significant and positive step forward taken by the Vatican today,' the executive director of UNAIDS, Michel Sidibe, said in a statement released Sunday. 'This move recognizes that responsible sexual behaviour and the use of condoms have important roles in HIV prevention' [AP 21/11]."
A UNAIDS spokesman in Geneva added: "We are welcoming this as an opening up of discussion." I'll bet. Just like their CINO soulmates. Salivating over the Pandora's Box of endless dissident possibilities which have now opened up, the editor of the Southern Cross flagged the disputatious minefield we have entered. "The Pope just gave us one example [a male prostitute]. But there must be other examples as well," he drooled.
"I don't see any change"
Exactly. And that is why "yes but, no but," the clueless mantra of Vicky Pollard, Little Britain's satirical archetype of the moronic condom culture, is set to be the tenor of future discussion: worldlings and CINOs forever referencing Light of the World as theological year zero for prophylactics, while Catholics struggle to hold an increasingly fuzzy line with "yes but, no but" retorts.
Benedict's published words had no sooner lit the fuse than the fire-fighting and damage limitation began. American philosopher Janet Smith, a 'no big deal' apologist, immediately dismissed it all as a tempest in a teapot. Summing up her defence of the orthodoxy of the Pope's statement, she writes:
In the same vein, Cardinal Raymond Burke, the prefect of the Apostolic Signatura (the High Court of the Church), stated in an interview with the National Catholic Register:
A concluding analogy by Professor Smith appeared to deliver an early coup de grâce to atheistic Liberals and CINOs seeking to hijack the papal comments for subversive ends:
Notable orthodox clerics found Smith's defence "quite sound and reasonable." Yet while I understand the first and last parts of her analogy, surely the middle part brings it undone. True, it is not the role of the Church to instruct potential bank robbers to rob banks more safely or to support initiatives established for that purpose. But to the ears of hundreds of millions of CINOs (and perception is everything) the Holy Father has done precisely that: instructing actual and potential sinners how they might sin safely. In the process, he has handed the condom manufacturers and distributors a sales bonanza by complementing their "safer sex" deception with his de-facto proclamation of a "safer morality." As one of many dismayed CO readers opined: "The 'safer' you make it [mortal sin], the more it will be seen as attractive, and the more it will be practiced." And the more it's practiced, the more condoms they hustle, QED.
A respondent to Janet Smith's papal defence commented likewise, that "the mere discussion of condom use opens the floodgates for its apparent widespread approval, regardless of any limited use as noted by the Holy Father's theoretical discussion with a journalist. Second, Dr. Smith's banal analogy of a bank robber using an empty weapon in the act of robbing a bank has no moral basis. The intent is to commit a grave sin to steal a large amount of money. The mere act of committing the crime may cause a customer or employee to have a heart attack or stroke. A guard in the performance of his duties discharges his weapon and injures or kills an innocent bystander. Numerous sins committed through one's use of an 'empty weapon.' By the way, the law is clear in most [U.S.] states. Use of a firearm, empty or loaded, is the same."
Another browser also pointed out to Dr. Smith: "With respect, your empty gun analogy is poor, as the user failure rate of condoms is not zero, but rather high (at least 10%). So it would be more like using a gun with only one bullet in; like russian roulette."
"Safe sex Russian Roulette"
It was precisely for this reason — playing Russian Roulette with people's lives — and following requests from readers over the past year for the hard facts (to assist information campaigns, letters to the press, etc.), that I had long decided to return this very month to the subject of murderous condom use and the associated propaganda and cover-up by government and corporate interests, as recorded by Cardinal Trujillo in 2003. Reprinted herein, all 87 footnotes have been included to give readers full confidence in spreading the vital information provided in his scientific compendium. A superb study, it emphasises that "There is no such thing as a 100% protection from HIV/AIDS or other STD's through condom use today" (despite ongoing widespread belief that condoms provide total protection). Among much else, it also includes invaluable, self-incriminating statements from the death-dealers themselves.
In one damning admission, for example, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) states that "the risk of contracting AIDS during so-called 'protected sex' approaches 100 percent as the number of episodes of sexual intercourse increases." Cardinal Trujillo goes on to explain:
(Against those hard facts, consider this statement in All That I Am, Archbishop Nichols' Birmingham sex-ed programme: "Condoms properly used are 98% effective." For corrupting Catholic children and peddling such dangerous deceptions, he was promoted to Westminster.)
As pathetic and offensive as it is to have to deal with such a sordid subject, the Cardinal's comprehensive paper is not only a matter of life and death, it is more important than ever in the aftermath of the Holy Father's explosive statement — to counter the renewed push for condom-Russian Roulette it has already triggered among the population cullers, secular media, CINO episcopates and their CINO aid agencies, CINO press, et. al.
On the one hand, His Eminence emphatically reaffirms that the Church not only holds the spiritual/moral high ground but also the practical/technical upper hand. On the other, prelates like Vincent Nichols and self-appointed lay spokesmen such as England's "CINO Voices" (aka "Catholic Voices") melt before the inevitable Condom Question, as if the Catholic case were dubious or negligible; displaying no conviction or courage and even less understanding of Church teaching and the scientific evidence.
How Cardinal Trujillo shames these lame creatures! His fearless study, for which he was roundly condemned by the billion dollar condom lobby, is a prime example of the truly Catholic, front-foot approach required. It is also the ready-made reply to neocons who bristle at criticism of the Holy Father's response to Seewald.
Not that Benedict doesn't know any better. In March 2009 he ignited a positive Trujillo-like firestorm of controversy when, on a trip to Africa, he told journalists that the distribution of condoms increased the problem of AIDS. He need only have held that line. Alas, he changed tack, handing the enemy a grenade to lob at his own hard-pressed orthodox troops in the field.
"Risk reduction is not even an option"
In particular, one feels for the Philippino bishops. For decades they have faithfully held the line despite relentless pressure from population cullers like Kissinger. Thanks to their righteous stand against promiscuity and condoms, countless Philippinos have been spared the agony of HIV/AIDS; tens of thousands of lives saved.
Cardinal Trujillo's statistical comparison with Thailand shows that its 100% condom-use policy had produced around 750,000 HIV/AIDS cases by 2003, as against only 1,935 cases in the Philippines despite its much bigger population. The WHO had estimated that during the period 1991-1999, the enlightened Thai policy would restrict cases of HIV/AIDS to only 60-80,000, and that the Philippine's would experience between 80-90,000 cases. In fact, by 1999 there were 755,000 cases in Thailand (65,000 deaths) and a mere 1,005 in the Philippines (225 deaths).
Suddenly, such positive Catholic news has been swamped by coverage of a local Church under siege from Philippino politicians using Benedict's statement to push their condom-promoting reproductive health (RH) bill currently before the parliament. "Roman Catholic Church leaders call on Malacañang [the Presidential Palace/administration] to stop 'opportunistic misuse' of Pope Benedict XVI’s statement on condom use," ran one CBCPNews report, as the Bishops fought to control the adverse papal effect. The report continued:
In the time-consuming process of defending the orthodoxy of the pontiff who landed them in this needless and dangerously distracting mess, the stout Philippinos are not backing off one inch. Fr. Joel Jason, a seminary professor of Fundamental Moral Theology, Sexuality and Integrity and Bioethics, and head of Manila's Archdiocesan Commission on Family and Life, said the pope remains firm on the Church’s injunctions against contraceptives. "We tend to take things out of context… before they [the pro-RH crowd] make a conclusion," he added, "they should first get the whole context of what the Holy Father really said." But although it was not intended as a criticism, Fr Jason's final comment could also be seen as a papal rebuke. After insisting that AIDS must be fought through moral fidelity and sexual abstinence (as proven in the Philippines), he said:
How much time, effort, distress, confusion, faith and sin would have been saved had Benedict answered his interviewer with such unyielding simplicity, and left it at that."It is going to create such a mess"
Instead, the Holy Father has muddied the waters. As Cardinal Trujillo warns: "Given that AIDS is a serious threat... avoiding all ambiguities and confusion, is certainly called for — not only for the benefit of the public in general, but also in order to help the sincere and countless efforts to prevent the pandemic of AIDS and the other sexually transmitted diseases." For whatever reason, Benedict has sadly introduced such "ambiguity and confusion" which cannot help but make those "sincere and countless efforts" more difficult than they already are.
Papal defenders now find themselves engaged in a futile war of interpretations with Liberals who are revelling in the confusion and utterly disinterested in their orthodox parsing of papal words. Clouding the issue further, Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi immediately broadened the debate to include women, announcing:
To all hapless neo-con squarers of this widening circle we can only say: "Good luck with that!", and wish them well. Meantime, a note from a distinguished reader expressed the deeper fears of many:
Voicing similar concerns, John Vennari, editor of Catholic Family News, has suggested keeping three points in mind as "this calamity" develops:
"Nor," concluded Vennari, "did any saint or Church Father or Pope place any significance to the possibility that use of such a device by a person engaged in heinous acts may be some sort of first step toward moral responsibility."
But it is not just cranky trads who are giving a thumbs down. Dr. John Haas, the president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia, who serves on the governing council of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life, is typical of pro-life leaders reeling from the shock of Benedict's comments. "This is really shaking things up big time," he told reporters. He said he had expected an earthquake after perusing an embargoed copy of Light of the World: "I told the publisher, 'Don’t publish this; it’s going to create such a mess'."
When Fr Lombardi issued his above "clarification" about women and the Holy Father's wider intention, Dr. Haas extended his criticism accordingly. "I don’t think it’s a clarification," he responded, "it’s a muddying of the waters. My opinion is that the pope purposely chose a male prostitute to avoid that particular debate." Asked for his view if Benedict is in fact opening that debate (which at the time of writing seems to be the case), he replied: "I think the pope’s wrong."
Even clergy busy defending the orthodoxy of Benedict's statement were forced to admit the "mess" it had created. Lamented one (to an email group): "I agree that it would have been better if the Pope had kept his mouth shut abut this whole issue!"
"The pope smiled"
So why didn't he? Why be so deliberately provocative when you know that billions struggling with temptation or looking for any excuse to misbehave will blithely overlook the fact that you are not condoning buggery or contraception, and when your own media spokesman has specifically warned of an explosive outcome?
Where to start?! Perhaps with an Irish reader, always well informed and balanced in his assessments, who suggests that despite traditionalist flag-waving over Summorum Pontificum, other dicey and inaccurate responses to Seewald indicate that the Pope "isn't really at the races on the trad issue. He means well, but doesn't know the issue." He continues:
Whatever Mgr Gänswein's influence and regardless of surprising (self-professed) gaps in the Holy Father's knowledge of the traditionalist scene, the media sensed the broader papal intent. "Although he is not changing church doctrine," observed the Associated Press, "Benedict’s comments on condoms seem in some ways to be a profound provocation." The report continued:
What a revealing comment. Furthermore, in an article titled "Benedict XVI is not naive," Italian Vaticanista Andrés Beltramo wrote that Lombardi's concern was met with the "knowing smile of a Pope who knew what he was doing"; he knew that his words could be misinterpreted and that he was going to talk about condoms anyway. (2)
I wonder if he is smiling now? Despite the turmoil he has caused, I strongly suspect that he is. Why? Because it is all part of the clever clogs Hegelian dialectic which Benedict, like his predecessor, embodies: thesis (orthodoxy) + antithesis (Liberalism) = synthesis [cf. "The Making of John Paul III", Nov. 2003].
How often we have expressed our reservations about this unpredictable pontiff: the orthodox/traditional Bavarian Benedict of liturgical reform vis-à-vis the academic Liberal Benedict once listed as doctrinally 'suspect' by the Holy Office. These contradictions personify the Hegelian friction between opposites that allegedly sparks a creative tension essential to dynamic development. The informing "spirit" of Joseph Ratzinger's beloved Vatican II, Pope Benedict now passes off this friction-spark-development process as "the hermeneutic of continuity" — opaque jargon for what seems more like "the discontinuous development of doctrine."
This compromising process is favoured by Liberals to rationalise their DIY moral theology and normalise their sexual deviance. Thus, one such group unwittingly describes its mega-dissident mission in precise Hegelian terms: "Past Catholic morality has been tainted with negative views on sexuality [thesis]. On this site we present a balanced view, supported by modern Catholic theology [antithesis]. We try to preserve a healthy balance, avoiding past and present extremes [pseudo-Catholic synthesis]."
Similarly, the mainstream process is not about discordant heresies. Rather, traditional teachings and practises, theological "subtleties and equivocal nuances," ambiguous nods (Gaudium et Spes) and pastoral winks (tacit acceptance of homosexual Masses) - all of these are lumped together and presented as harmonious, seamless aggiornamento. Communion in the hand and altar girls one day; Summorum Pontificum the next. Luther condemned; Luther praised. Rosmini censured; Rosmini rehabilitated. Yesterday Mortalium Animos and Humanae Vitae; today Assisi and condom concessions. Nod nod, nudge nudge, wink wink ad nauseam.
Even with the best papal will in the world (which goes without saying), the end result of this insidious and decidedly inorganic process is a dilution of Catholic faith and morals in order to reach a peaceful accommodation with post-1789 "modernity."
Despite a smiling Pope who vigorously denounces relativism, this world-weary detente is everywhere apparent in Rome. Vatican Congregations and Pontifical Universities, Colleges, Councils and Commissions are riddled with purveyors of heterodoxy, heresy and political correctness (like the furtive Vatican support for the godless global-warming scam, as revealed in the cables released by WikiLeaks). Meanwhile, the curia's effete wrist-slapping response to homosexual scandals abroad surely reflects the wicked fruit of the "gay" clerical sub-culture which took Roman root during Paul VI's tenure and is now, as elsewhere, erupting in Italian headlines.
This ecclesial secularisation is not only exemplified by the gratuitous concession (Hegelian "development") on condoms, it is manifest in the whole farcical affair.
"Too much worldly wisdom"
Firstly, in using celebrity-style interviews to air controversial pontifical views. As a CO correspondent put it:
On the other hand, Andrés Beltramo considers that the great value of the Light of the World is its humanity and candour. We need not worry about any damage to the papal magisterium, he insists, because Pope Benedict has in fact strengthened the Church, by affirming that Popes have opinions outside of the magisterial office and that these can be wrong.
Well, it's a point of view! Yet one telling feature of these supposedly "candid" and "humane" reflections, ignored by commentators like Beltramo, is the often less than candid papal treatment of Catholic morality, for fear of offending secular ears; a prime example being Benedict's failure to mention "mortal sin" or "repentance." Especially striking in light of his "New Evangelisation" initiative, this omission prompted Canadian writer and author Randy Engel to recall that
It is a worrying pattern. During a Wednesday General Audience reflection on St Peter Damian last September, the Pope completely ignored Damian's epochal 11th century stand against the sodomites: a glaring omission that astounded everyone, including Benedict stalwarts like Robert Moynihan, editor of Inside the Vatican, who was shocked and baffled.
Condemned by all faithful Catholics, this corrosive trend is only cheered by condom-equivocating, sodomite-appeasing CINOs like Archbishop Vincent Nichols [see CO, November 2010]. Speaking to Zenit last November just after the storm broke, he was doubtless buoyed and feeling vindicated by the papal embrace of the 'real world' he has long accommodated. He found admirable shades of Blessed Newman in the Holy Father "taking care not to offend people" while trying to "find modes of expression that appeal to his listeners or readers." He emphasised "the importance of [Newman-like] moderation of the language and the view," and the episcopate's "determination to pursue this pathway of dialogue so elegantly highlighted for us by Pope Benedict."
On the contrary, of course, the eloquent Newman often upset erring Protestants with very direct calls for conversion to the one true Church - the sort of evangelical appeal the Archbishop avoids like the plague. Aware that Catholic truth most certainly does not "appeal" to the great unwashed, the sad truth is that His Grace determined long ago "to take care not to offend people" - and to shift the blame to Blessed John Henry!
Like most of his brother bishops and priests, Archbishop Nichols desperately needs to wake up and smell the Catholic coffee! That is, to hear and act upon the following rebuke from a revered Spanish mystic and Doctor of the Church. It was highlighted in a robust critique of the condom affair by philosopher Anthony McCarthy.(3)For several years an upstanding member of the English episcopate's Bioethics Centre, McCarthy said it all in asking readers to "Contrast the Pope’s words on condoms with this advice to preachers from St Theresa of Avila":
"Subjection of the Church"
Secondly, speaking to the same worldly acquiescence was the fact that L'Osservatore Romano editor Giovanni Maria Vian kicked off the whole controversy so as not to be beaten to the punch by secular papers. In the process of playing according to their rules, he duly ignited what Beltramo described as "a molotov cocktail of planetary magnitude, the worst Vatican communications gaffe for a long time." Hardly surprising, since Vian, who liaises regularly with the Pope, has made the zeitgeist his own. Lauding Obama and Blair and enthusing about pop culture, he has rapidly reduced the once venerable Vatican newspaper to a disreputable laughing stock. Yet the Vian-syndrome is not only scandalous, it is representative and endemic. Stuart Chessman of The Society of St Hugh of Cluny (Connecticut) posted this insightful comment:
"The Traditional Catholic cult"
In the article referenced by Mr Chessman, entitled Eine goldig verzierte Moral ["A gilded Morality"], ex-Traditionalist German homosexuals and fellow-travellers are infuriated by the fact that "A Traditionalism, elegantly perfumed by aesthetes like Martin Mosebach, has ... become socially acceptable." Consequently, they are now targeting and traducing traditionalists and all they stand for; arguing that "homosexual sublimation" is the "root and source of the Traditional Catholic cult" which explains the "homophobia" in such circles. They insist that this culture of "discretion and repression" can no longer be maintained in the aftermath of Pope Benedict's comments. Moreover, they declare that the loosening of the restrictions on condoms is only the first step in liberating sexuality from a traditional "Catholic fantasy world." (4)
In the end, as ever, Tradition gets it in the neck. "Reactionary" adherents of the Old Religion must be crushed in a pincer movement involving Hegelian Modernisers on one flank, and Sexual Deviants on the other. In this sticky situation our best (and only) defence is to attack! Above all, we must never allow the homosexuals and their sympathisers to distract attention from the inseparable nexus between condoms and homosexual depravity; especially the molestation and rape of pre and post-pubescent children by a large subset of the "gay" community. For they are masters of manipulating events like the present furore to their own advantage, if we let them.
It was the "gay" lobby that first turned Gay-Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome [GRIDS] into AIDS, in order to make an overwhelmingly homosexual disease the disease of everyman. A monumental media-fuelled scam,(5)even the propagandising United Nations finally confessed to chasing and funding "gay" shadows. "You will not do much about AIDS in London by spending funds in schools," admitted the WHO's top HIV expert in June 2008, just months after the UN admitted vastly overstating the threat of AIDS. Yet even as I write, despite sodomites constituting more than a third of the 6,700 HIV-positive cases in France last year (and prostitutes, drug addicts and African migrants making up the rest), authorities want the entire populace screened for HIV! [Le Figaro, 1/12/10]
Once AIDS replaced GRIDS, the infernally brilliant "safe sex" strategy established the global "condom culture" that introduced sodomy into schoolrooms via AIDS "education."
The "gay" achilles heel, however, is the naked truth about their cruel and bestial world. Only their faustian pact with the entertainment-media conspires to hide their true face - what they do and what they're really about - from the public. It is left to us, therefore, to counter this perennial deception and flush them out into the light, so all can behold the shocking truth behind the Big Lies about homosexual "normalcy"; the benign facade they are successfully presenting to society and especially to our children (soon from the age of five, according to a British government project which in January 2009 set itself a goal of "creating primary classrooms where queer sexualities are affirmed and celebrated.")
To this end, we are reprinting alongside Cardinal Trujillo's candid analysis an equally frank and insightful piece on the "gay" scene. Both these essays contain graphic sexual descriptions. Yet not only are they necessary additions to our armoury, they are also potentially life-saving articles deserving wide distribution. In this way, we play by our own Catholic rules, exposing the "gay" condom culture for what it is: a bacchanalian contrivance, at once deadly and lucrative.
Better still, by refusing to enter the Liberal "safer sex" minefield of confusion and compromise, we avoid complicity in the physical and spiritual wreckage our admittance would trigger. A sobering thought, especially in light of Benedict's perplexing and perilous strategem. Indeed, it raises one final, uncomfortable query.
"Now the message has come: they can do safe sex"
Early on in his interview, Peter Seewald suggested that the leader of such a massive institution must have great power. Acutely aware of the abject state of the global flock he inherited, the Pope demurred, pointing out that "Among those 1.2 billion Catholics are many who inwardly are not there." He doubtless had in mind the likes of Father Peter Makome, a CINO cleric from Zimbabwe who was delighted to learn of the Pope's latex ruminations. "I’ve got brothers and sisters and friends who are suffering from HIV because they were not practicing safe sex," he said. "Now the message has come out that they can go ahead and do safe sex. It’s much better for everyone."
And so the sixty-four thousand dollar question: Who will be held more accountable at Judgement for those on the receiving end of that "message"; for souls enticed into 'safer sex' by a 'safer morality'? Who will answer for all the consequent sin and misery — Father Makome? Or Pope Benedict?
(1) My translation from the original German (based on pre-publication extracts from Light of the World).
(2) As reported by Fr Tim Finigan on "The Hermeneutic of Continuity" blog.
(4) Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 22/11/10. [See also "The Remarkable Mosebach," CO, Oct. 2010.]
(5) See "The BBC & Big Media Betrayal," CO, Feb. 2008, pp. 46-48.