In defense of the Pope

By Bryan Fischer

The New York Times has done to the Pope on condoms what the out-of-the-mainstream has done to me on the Medal of Honor: so distorted his words that they accuse of him of saying the exact opposite of what he actually said.

According the Gray (and fading) Lady, the Pope said "that condom use can be justified in some cases to help stop the spread of AIDS..."

Sorry, Charlie, that's not what he said.

For openers, he flatly denied that condoms are the solution to the AIDS problem: "We cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms." It's difficult to be any clearer than that.

Here is the central paragraph in the Pope's interview, with emphasis added:

"There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality."

What part of "not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection" does the New York Times not understand? A third grader can understand that better than the arrogant, out of touch, and self-appointed elitists at the Times.

The Pope's point is that if a homosexual begins to use condoms, it could represent a dawning moral awareness on his part that homosexual conduct is not a victimless crime, and that his action of using certain body parts for sexual pleasure poses a real, live health risk to the passive recipient of his sexual expression.

It may be the first step on a path that could lead a practitioner of sexually abnormal behavior back to normative and normal sexuality.

Rather than a ringing endorsement of condom use, it is rather a recognition that such use may represent the first step in repudiating homosexuality altogether.

Another commentator, Sacred Heart Major Seminary professor Janet Smith, provided a useful analogy. It could be compared to an experienced bank robber who starts taking bullets out of his gun before going into banks because he doesn't want anybody to get hurt.

Saying that such an act might be the first sign of an awakening conscience is hardly the same as saying that my counsel to Bonnie and Clyde would have been to do it with unloaded guns. Yep, that's my advice, that's really the best way to rob a bank.

No, my counsel would be don't rob banks, period. If you start using blanks instead of real bullets, that might mean someday you'll get your mind right and start working for a living instead of robbing people who do, and I'd certainly be pleased if that turned out to be the case.

In the meantime, I'm still going to tell kids not even to think about robbing banks, urge those who are doing it to stop, and offer them whatever help I can to help them straighten up and fly right.

Same goes with homosexual behavior. Our counsel is don't start; if you have started, stop; and if you want to stop, we're here to give you the help you need to leave a dangerous lifestyle that not only will probably kill you but others along the way.

And maybe if the old media would stop twisting and distorting the words of conservatives, it might the first sign of an awakening conscience in the rabidly leftwing press, which has yet to meet a conservative it did not seek to destroy.

But the plain and sad fact of the matter is that there was probably more hope for Bonnie and Clyde than there is for the New York Times.

(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)

© Bryan Fischer