Coping with Recession

The current Irish economic and political situation reminds me of some advice offered by Flann O'Brien during the dark days of the Emergency (World War II).

THE BROTHER has it all worked out.  

What?  

The war. How we can get through the war here in the Free State. I mean the rationing and the brown bread and all that class of thing. The brother has a plan. Begob you'll be surprised when you hear it. A very high view was taken when it was explained in the digs the other night.

What is the nature of this plan? 

It's like this. I'll tell you. We all go to bed for one week every month. Every single man, woman and child in the country. Cripples, drunks, policemen, watchmen - everybody. Nobody is allowed to be up. No newspapers, 'buses, pictures, or any other class of amusement allowed at all. And no matter who you are you must be stuck inside in the bed there. Readin' a book of course, if you like. But no getting up stakes.  

That strikes me a curious solution to difficulties in this dynamic iron age. 

D'ye see, when nobody is up, you save clothes, shoes, rubber, petrol, coal, turf, timber and everything we're short of. And food too, remember. Because tell me this - what makes you hungry? It's work that makes you hungry. Work and walking around and swallying pints and chawin' the rag at the street corner. Stop in bed an' all you'll ask for is an odd slice of bread. Or a slice of fried bread to make your hair curly, says you. If nobody's up, there's no need for anybody to do any work because everybody in the world does be workin' for everybody else. 

I see. In a year therefore you would effect a saving of twenty-five per cent in the consumption of essential commodities.  

Well now, I don't know about that, but you'd save a quarter of everything, and that would be enough to see us right.  

But why get up after a week?
The bakers, man. The bakers would have to get up to bake more bread, an if wan is up, all has to be up. Do you know why? Because damn the bit of bread your men the bakers would make for you if the rest of us were in bed. Your men couldn't bear the idea of everybody else being in bed and them working away in the bakery. The brother says we have to make allowances for poor old human nature. That's what he called it. Poor old human nature. And begob he's not far wrong. 

Very interesting. He would do well to communicate this plan to responsible Government department.

You're not far wrong there yourself. Bye-bye, here's me bus!

(from Cruiskeen Lawn, in The Irish Times, during The Emergency. Available in Flann O'Brien's "The Best of Myles"

(Transcription found here)

I despair, I really do...

... about the inability of the press to accurately report religious matters.
The Daily Telegraph website has the following headline:

The Pope drops Catholic ban on condoms in historic shift

Do I need to say that the headline is totally misleading?
Anyway, the article opens as follows:

After decades of fierce opposition to the use of all contraception, the pontiff will end the Church's absolute ban on the use of condoms.
He will say that it is acceptable to use a prophylactic when the sole intention is to "reduce the risk of infection" from Aids.

So, what did the Pope actually say? The Curt Jester actually quotes chapter and verse from the Pope's interview with Peter Seewald:

From Chapter 11, “The Journeys of a Shepherd,” pages 117-119:

On the occasion of your trip to Africa in March 2009, the Vatican’s policy on AIDs once again became the target of media criticism.Twenty-five percent of all AIDs victims around the world today are treated in Catholic facilities. In some countries, such as Lesotho, for example, the statistic is 40 percent. In Africa you that the Church’s traditional teaching has proven to be the only sure way to stop the spread of HIV. Critics, including critics from the Church’s own ranks, object that it is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms.

The media coverage completely ignored the rest of the trip to Africa on account of a single statement. Someone had asked me why the Catholic Church adopts an unrealistic and ineffective position on AIDs. At that point, I really felt that I was being provoked, because the Church does more than anyone else. And I stand by that claim. Because she is the only institution that assists people up close and concretely, with prevention, education, help, counsel, and accompaniment. And because she is second to none in treating so many AIDs victims, especially children with AIDs.
I had the chance to visit one of these wards and to speak with the patients. That was the real answer: The Church does more than anyone else, because she does not speak from the tribunal of the newspapers, but helps her brothers and sisters where they are actually suffering. In my remarks I was not making a general statement about the condom issue, but merely said, and this is what caused such great offense, that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms. Much more needs to be done. We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease.
As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.
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.

Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

Now, that's quite a lot to read by the standard of today's journalists, but it seems to me that the Pope is stating quite explicitly that condoms are not a moral solution. What's unclear about that?
Yes, the Pope does point out that in certain circumstances the decision to use a condom to prevent a sexual partner from contracting HIV may represent for that person a first step towards a healthier and more moral appreciation of their sexuality and their sexual behaviour. But, what he says is in no way an alteration of the Church's teaching.

(If I might suggest an analogous argument - a promiscuous young man who makes a decision to be faithful to his steady girlfriend may be a first step towards a healthier and more moral sexuality. I think any sensible confessor or moral theologian would see that. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that extra-marital sexual activity is something good or something to be approved of.)

Also, one would have thought that the Telegraph's Religious Affairs Correspondent would know that Popes aren't in the habit of promulgating major doctrinal rulings in book-length interviews. It's curious how journalists who, presumably don't believe in Papal infallibility, tend to attribute the greatest of weight to the Pope's obiter dicta.

Edited to add:
Of genuine interest are these snippets from the book in question.

For example,

And how does Pope Benedict pray?
As far as the Pope is concerned, he too is a simple beggar before God – even more than all other people. Naturally, I always pray first and foremost to our Lord, with whom I am united simply by old acquaintance, so to speak. But I also invoke the saints. I am friends with Augustine, with Bonaventure, with Thomas Aquinas. One says to such saints: “Help me!” In this sense, I commend myself to the communion of saints. With them, strengthened by them, I then talk with the dear Lord also, begging, for the most part, but also in thanksgiving – or quite simply being joyful. 

 That image of the beggar strikes me as very Augustinian

The Liberator

Newstalk's Talking History had a very interesting discussion of Daniel O'Connell and his legacy. (For Podcast see here.) Like Patrick Geoghegan, I was gobsmacked that the man who won Catholic Emancipation and politically mobilised the Irish like no one before him wasn't on the shortlist for Ireland's Greatest Person.