The Wedding and condoms

With all the excitement over next year’s royal wedding, it has been hard to concentrate on much else. I think that with a world awash in piffle about human dignity and concern for the less fortunate—all that socialist crap, designed to make us forget about Freedom to make as much money as possible with as little taken away for such things as … for lack of a better phrase “fellow man”—I say, with all this hogwash, a wedding between a person whose ancestors have claimed the right to preside over others, all the way back to medieval Germany, will take people’s minds off distressing thoughts about the future of mankind and the like.

Simon Heffer, Associate Editor of the Daily Telegraph. He’s as up-to-date as the technology his paper is named after.

I personally like reading about the doings of the adorable Royal Couple in the Telegraph. The opinionators there seem to have their heads screwed on right. They have not been contaminated by the thinking of the last three hundred years. I particularly like Simon Heffer. Yes, yes, go on, you silly American twits; laugh about his last name. You don’t understand that British thinkers with Dickensian names which betray their personality, actually are well thought of by the people who were born better than them. Any way, forget his name, just consider his opinions. I can tell you I would not like to be a Socialist like John Locke. If Locke didn’t die 300 years ago, he’d get a snide comment or two from Heffer concerning his communistic ideas about limits to accumulation of property. You can just imagine the spanking that he’d give to Locke by just looking at one of his columns, this one on the dreamy engagement of the Prince and the commoner:

“Nothing, however, has been more idiotic or offensive than the notion that the Queen and the Prince of Wales should effectively mortgage themselves to pay for the wedding of Prince William. This carping, mean-minded drivel was only to be expected from republicans, a group that had its day in the sun in 1997, when various hysterics wanted to hang the Queen and her heir from lamp-posts in protest at the self-inflicted death of Diana, Princess of Wales: since then, however, we have heard little from them.”

Wow, I’d hate to be a proponent of “sovereignty of the people” with that guy’s wit around! But it gets worse for those damned republicans:

“We are lucky to have a monarchy. It is cheaper to run, more dutiful, less controversial and far more useful than a republic, the examples of which around the world should fill us with horror.

Ouch! Take that republicans! You are all soooooo eighteenth century! Maybe you should all go off and eat cake. And choke on it even!

You can see what I mean. I wasn’t even planning to talk about the Royal Wedding but I just couldn’t stop myself. I mean, How can you think about anything else?

OK, concentrate.

What I really wanted to bring to your attention was another institution from Medieval times: the Papacy.

The Church has taken its share of ribbing since the Enlightenment. But when you need moral anchoring you always look to the Holy See. It doesn’t matter if the current occupant was a Hitler Youth, or head of the Inquisition, or even one who will end up in the equivalent of Dante’s Inferno. The office deserves respect if the occupant doesn’t. (But this one surely does.) This may be a bit much for the republicans among you. Especially those from failed republican states like the United States and France. But if you are at all capable of an open mind, then listen to what Joseph Ratzinger had to say this past week.

Sorry, I should have said His Holiness Benedict XVI (or so). I should have known you American twits would confuse Our Savior’s designate on Earth with some guy who used to sit next to Norm in a bar in a stupid sitcom.

His Holiness this week gave an interview to a German reporter about his upcoming book, Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times. It’s supposed to be out next week, although I can’t find it on (Does the Pope write under a pen name?) It doesn’t matter; I’m certainly going to keep a space for it in my bookshelf. I think it should probably go between Whittaker Chambers, Witness and Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged. It’s that important!

The Pope and the German journalist probably discussed the book in their native language, but thankfully the Vatican paper translated it into a more accessible language, Italian. But with modern technology, we can understand what he was talking about, even if he decided to give us the wisdom of God in French or some other language used by republicans.

Of course the bombshell is this: The Pope told us that God allows condom use in certain cases! It turns out that God really doesn’t want people to die from AIDS. (I have to admit this one completely took me by surprise. I’m really glad the Pope straightened me out on this one. Although, you have to wonder why He created the virus in the first place.)

You see, God just didn’t want us to “trivialize” sex. I hear you republicans sniggering, so I’ll put the whole thought out there just in context like the German cardinal wanted it expressed. This will shut you up:

Concentrarsi solo sul profilattico vuol dire banalizzare la sessualità, e questa banalizzazione rappresenta proprio la pericolosa ragione per cui tante e tante persone nella sessualità non vedono più l’espressione del loro amore, ma soltanto una sorta di droga, che si somministrano da sé. Perciò anche la lotta contro la banalizzazione della sessualità è parte del grande sforzo affinché la sessualità venga valutata positivamente e possa esercitare il suo effetto positivo sull’essere umano nella sua totalità.

Vi possono essere singoli casi giustificati, ad esempio quando una prostituta utilizza un profilattico, e questo può essere il primo passo verso una moralizzazione, un primo atto di responsabilità per sviluppare di nuovo la consapevolezza del fatto che non tutto è permesso e che non si può far tutto ciò che si vuole. Tuttavia, questo non è il modo vero e proprio per vincere l’infezione dell’Hiv. È veramente necessaria una umanizzazione della sessualità.

His Holiness recommends keeping a condom in your wallet in case you have to hire a male prostitute in a country that doesn’t have gas stations.

You can just hear the poetry of the language that God and Mussolini liked to talk in (probably to each other!).

I hate to try to gloss something this clear, but indulge me. You see, sexual relations between a man and a woman are fraught with all sorts of trivialities. That’s one of the reasons why priests take a vow not to have relations with women. The condom, however, is a device that encourages trivial sex. I suppose it’s because it is sold in gas station rest rooms.

If there is an instance where the sexual act is not trivialized, then a condom could be used to prevent AIDS. That’s why His Holiness uses a male prostitute as an example. Sex with a male prostitute is not trivial. And not cheap either. So in that case, the male prostitute can use a condom to prevent AIDS. And not go to Hell!

In other cases, however, condoms will send you right to Hell. Unless you buy indulgences. of course. (Someone should actually try to package these together. Imagine: Trojan® Ultra Ribbed Ectasy™ Lubricated Condoms and Vatican® Ultra Blessed Super Paradise-Headed One-Night-Stand Indulgences™. Why risk eternal happiness on something as trivial as sex with a stranger in a Days Inn?)

So, there’s the big news. Go to a male prostitute, and God allows condoms. Have consensual sex, and condom use sends you to Hell. So the choice is yours: Prostitute, AIDS or Hell. If you are seducing children in the church, different standards may apply; I’m not sure. Consult you local Cardinal on that one.

In any event, I think we have to thank His Holiness for clearing this all up. Perhaps the Telegraph’s Damian Thompson put it best in his headline: “Pope Benedict’s extraordinary comments about condoms and HIV reflect his charity and common sense.” I bet there are male prostitutes all over the world thinking of celebrating communion now, solely because of his charity.

We should all be thankful that we live in a time where royalism and religious authoritarianism are coming back in favor. Please don’t confuse this remark, however, as suggesting that you should celebrate that republican holiday of Thanksgiving.

Update [2/21/11]: More on the Wedding™ here.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s