Friday, April 17, 2009

Regarding the Holy See's Response to Belgium...


I do have a couple of questions:

  • Why the almost exclusive emphasis on the Pope's right to be a moral voice in the public square? Why no stronger defense of the Church's position vis a vìs condoms in Africa as a matter of public health policy? In Africa, condom distribution has failed miserably - indeed, it has aggravated the public health emergency, as Pope Benedict said. Why not emphasize this element of the discussion?
  • Does anyone else get the sense that the response is, if not exactly aenemic, rather less robust than it might have been? Why not say that the Pope is the ruler of a sovereign state and will say what he pleases, while the Church will continue to pretend the right to speak in public on matters touching the common weal?
Just asking.

1 comment:

Clayton said...

Maybe it's economy of effort: keeping the response in the generic because there's a sense that more of the same will be coming, on a whole range of issues, and there's a hope that other governments will sit up and take notice.