Pope on condoms: Not the lesser evil, really…
…But better than nothing, Benedict seems to be saying in an extensive clarification issued today by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
Some commentators have interpreted the words of Benedict XVI according to the so-called theory of the “lesser evil”. This theory is, however, susceptible to proportionalistic misinterpretation (cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis splendor, n. 75-77). An action which is objectively evil, even if a lesser evil, can never be licitly willed. The Holy Father did not say – as some people have claimed – that prostitution with the use of a condom can be chosen as a lesser evil. The Church teaches that prostitution is immoral and should be shunned. However, those involved in prostitution who are HIV positive and who seek to diminish the risk of contagion by the use of a condom may be taking the first step in respecting the life of another – even if the evil of prostitution remains in all its gravity. This understanding is in full conformity with the moral theological tradition of the Church.
The Vatican statement follows an ongoing debate among ethicists and moral theologians, many on the conservative side of the spectrum, who were battling among themselves over what the pope really meant and whether he was wrong or right or just misguided.
I think this clarification — which will itself be chewed over no doubt — pretty clearly gives the nod to Father Martin Rhonheimer, an Opus Dei priest whose Tablet article in 2004 really spurred the debate.
Rhonheimer’s recent interview with Our Sunday Visitor and Austen Ivereigh’s analysis at America’s blog (from whence I first learned of the new Vatican statement) seem to presage quite accurately this latest Vatican explainer.
A couple of thoughts: The pope clearly wants to state that his remarks did not signal a change on church teaching on contraception, which seemed clear from the start, though there were apparently some initial misconstruals.
He also says that “to use condoms to avoid an unwanted pregnancy is completely arbitrary and is in no way justified either by his words or in his thought” and that his remarks were not meant to refer to “conjugal morality.” But it seems inevitable that the AIDS example could have some resonance there given that deadly and dangerous situations can also arise in the marital context. (Humanae Vitae in fact states that a contraceptive used for wholly other intentions could be licit.) There seems no way to escape the weight of intention to some degree, it seems.
Also, Benedict has always been hinky — as have many ethicists, I believe — about the use of the term “the lesser evil,” fearing it could lead to proportionalism (bad) or simply divert attention from the relational aspect of the whole problem, which is where the focus should be. And yet the lesser evil does seem to be inherent here, if only by another name.
John Allen’s take, just in — a sample:
In effect, the doctrinal congregation’s concern appears to be that calling condom use a “lesser evil” could suggest it’s morally legitimate, something that can be chosen with a clear conscience. Instead, the congregation appears to be saying, the use of a condom in certain circumstances may be “less evil” than some alternatives, but it still falls short of the moral ideal.
What we have here is a clear case of obstinance. An absolute and resolute and purposeful REFUSAL to listen and to instead put false words in another’s mouth.
Let’s recap –
(1) The Pope says some things that no one who takes his prior remarks and Catholic teaching into consideration could reasonably say involves an approval of “lesser evil” morality.
(2) Certain people start claiming that the Pope is approving of “lesser evil.”
(3) Everyone else says a lesser evil is still an evil and the Pope did NOT say that.
(4) Certain people start claiming that the Pope did approve of “lesser evil.”
(5) The CDF issues a statement saying loudly and explicitly, NO, THE POPE DID NOT APPROVE OF “LESSER EVIL” MORALITY.
(6) Totally ignoring that loud and undeniable statement, we still get a continuation of the narrative, “And yet the lesser evil does seem to be inherent here, if only by another name.”
OK, we get it. You are not concerned with an honest discussion.
The Church teaches that prostitution is immoral and should be shunned.
Not sure that needed clearing up, but I do notice that this is not the “clarification” some conservatives were pushing for — which would have had “condoms” in this sentence in place of “prostitution.” (But of course, as the CDF knows, that’s not what the Church teaches.)
Bender, you are addressing me I think? Or the Vatican? I’m not sure. In any case, the CDF statement says the pope’s statement was in “full conformity with the moral theological tradition of the Church.” What does one call that type of moral reasoning then? I realize the “lesser evil” is a problematic term. So what do you call it?
I realize the “lesser evil” is a problematic term. So what do you call it?
The problem seems to be — if I understand this correctly — that if one must make a choice between two and only two things — an evil and a lesser evil — then it is licit for a Catholic to choose the lesser evil. In such a case, “lesser evil” counts as somewhat of a technical term. In the case of the the prostitute and the condom, there are at least three choices: (1) Don’t be a prostitute at all, (2) be a prostitute who uses condoms, (3) be a prostitute who doesn’t use condoms. The pope is saying choice 2 is not a “lesser evil” in the technical sense, because it is never licit to choose it. In fact, it is not even a “lesser evil” in ordinary speech, because “lesser” implies two choices, and there are three.
So “lesser evil” is to be avoided, because there is an implication that one may licitly choose a lesser evil, and also because in the case of the prostitute, it isn’t even “a lesser evil” to use condoms, it is just less evil than not using them.
Note that the CDF here, citing HV, still defines “contraception” in terms of the INTENTION to prevent conception. In using condoms to limit the spread of AIDS, the intention is disease prophylaxis, not contraception, no matter if the person in question is a prostitute or a faithful spouse. This is classic double-effect reasoning, not lesser-evil reasoning.
It is clear that the pope’s remarks indicate that, in his opinion, the act of using a condom in sex cannot be intrinsically evil. An act that is intrinsically evil can never be directly intended for any reason. Yet the pope says that such an act can be a first step toward a more holy life. Surely committing intrinsically evil acts cannot be a path to holiness. So…if it isn’t intrinsically evil, then how shall we describe it?
There may be intrinsically evil acts described in purely material terms, but, at least according to the Pope, using condoms in sex isn’t one of them.
The Pope’s only point from the beginning has been that the prostitute who uses the condom has in some seemingly small yet morally significant way moved toward concern for the “other” – a first step – in no way did he give grades to evil, lesser or greater.
Thanks, Lisa. The HV exception is also double-effect reasoning, no?
I concur with jim s. The pope’s words from the beginning had been very clear in their specificity of circumstance for what is permitted. The more we try to generalize a broader morality or ethical code from that particular circumstance, the less clear it becomes. This is a general rule of how moral theology works.
I think the rest of the firestorm or spin is due to people wanting the Pope to have said something else, perhaps more explicitly.
One interesting aspect is how much of the debate is on the “conservative” side, among the likes of Rhonheimer and Luke Gormally and George Weigel. I suspect this statement is also an effort to tamp down that dispute.
But my initial reaction from last month remains that this is a good discussion, that it has engaged people and shown how broad the Catholic tradition really is. Good for B16.
Exactly. If you use a contraceptive for some other reasonable purpose than contraception, it’s not rightly spoken of as an act of contraception. (Just like cancer patients don’t speak of chemo as a “way to get my hair to fall out,” although that happens, too.) The Humanae Vitae exception seems to speak to double effect and the importance of intention (along with act and circumstances,) in considering moral acts.
So prostitutes who are HIV-positive get a moral “pass” for being considerate of their clients’ physical health?
OK, the “johns” can live with that.
How about a HIV-positive husband who relents and puts on a condom to protect his wife? Does he get a moral “pass” for being considerate of her physical health?
If Rome doesn’t mind protecting the sex client, does Rome still object to protecting the wife in this context?
The morally salutatory thing would be for those who are ill to refrain from sexual relations.
Not sure if you’re sick? Err on the side of caution and don’t have sex.
Can’t refrain from sexual relations because you’re in a misogynistic culture that makes it difficult for a woman to say “no?” By all means, use a condom, but lets not call accommodating male stupidity a virtue.
The statement is at great pains to insist that the principle involved in the AIDS/prostitution case does not apply to a threat-to-wife’s life/marriage case.
It says, in a clear affirmation that Benedict was not approving the use of condoms to avoid pregnancy:
“The idea that anyone could deduce from the words of Benedict XVI that it is somehow legitimate, in certain situations, to use condoms to avoid an unwanted pregnancy is completely arbitrary and is in no way justified either by his words or in his thought.”
But it also says:
“On the pages [of Light of the World] in question, the Holy Father refers to the completely different case of prostitution, a type of behaviour which Christian morality has always considered gravely immoral (cf. Vatican II, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, n. 27; Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2355).”
I submit that the Pope is wrong to say that the two cases are “completely different”. They are completely alike insofar as in the AIDS/prostitution case the AIDS is a mortal threat to the person who submits to the prostitute, while in the marriage case the AIDS is also a mortal threat to the spouse not already infected.
If the use of a condom is justified in the first case, then by application of the same principle used in the AIDS case it should be justified in the second case. That a pregnancy might be frustrated in the second case is a separate issue, and if the couple has not intended to prevent pregnancy — having intended only that the AIDS be contained — then there seems to be no reason to preclude the use of a condom in such a marriage.
I think it should also be noted that the statement makes an important point about the activity of a prostitute with AIDS. It says that their sin is even worse because they take a serious risk of killing someone. The only time I’ve ever seen this point made was when Nureyev, the great ballet dancer, was suffering from AIDS he went to North Africa to enjoy the male prostitutes there as one last fling. He was rightly criticized, I think, for knowingly jeopardizing the prostitutes’ lives.
“It is clear that the pope’s remarks indicate that, in his opinion, the act of using a condom in sex cannot be intrinsically evil.”
Indeed, Lisa, he has made that clear as a bell. Poor George Weigel. What will he say now?
I’m encouraged that the Pope is apparently listening to his critics somewhat better and has at least cleared up this one point.
Meanwhile, those using condoms for whatever reason will continue to do so. I suspect that few if any Catholics in whatever standing will be overly concerned about what this pope has had to say in this matter, or how there has been Vatican shucking, jiving and back-pedalling – spin control, in other words.
These teapot tempests have so very little effect throughout the world, except for commentariats and bloggers. Does anyone REALLY think that the rest of the church/world will lose any sleep when they make an informed choice that the use of condoms makes the best sense to them?
Suppose a tyrant considers moving from a
(A) Caligula policy – routine torture for the fun of it, to a
(B) robust war on terror policy – torture if it is likely to save 10 people or more, to a
(C) restricted war on terror policy – torture for no more than 20 minutes and only if it will with virtual certainty save 1,000 or more innocents.
By analogy with the Pope’s Pope’s reasoning about the prostitute I imagine that the tyrant should be encouraged to move from A to B or C or from B to C as “a first step in a movement towards a different way, a more human way,” of governing. He may well be “intending to reduce the evil connected with his or her immoral activity.”
Does this conclusion hold even if, as the torture policy becomes more “reasonable,” it also becomes more acceptable and less likely to be further modified, just as “safe” prostitution may become more tolerated and more firmly embedded as a societal practice?
“But my initial reaction from last month remains that this is a good discussion, that it has engaged people and shown how broad the Catholic tradition really is. Good for B16.”(David Gibson, above).
Yes, and why not? Surely there are many subjects needing good discussions, and surely popes, among others, can contribute to them. I’m afraid (and I hope I’m not going to be misunderstood) that there are those who believe that the pope can not open is mouth without uttering an absolute truth, which thereby becomes part of Church Teaching (in caps). I’m not sure how far back in history this view goes, though I suspect it starts in the mid- or late xix century — the times of Pio Nono, in other words — and has developed since then to its present pitch.
But all the elaborate parsings and explanations, and he-didn’t-mean-what-you-think-he-meants, which we see in the wake of papal statements, remind me uncomfortably of the public reception of the Quotations From Chairman Mao, when the Great Helmsman was riding high forty years ago, and every word that fell from his lips was a treasure that demanded instant and absolute belief (and if the belief were not accepted, bad things happened to the nonbeliever).
And whether you believe that Chairman Mao was a Good Thing or a Bad Thing, he was certainly not a Catholic Thing (although this view may well be, unfortunately, a Roman Thing).
Lisa Fullam: It is clear that the pope’s remarks indicate that, in his opinion, the act of using a condom in sex cannot be intrinsically evil.
Ann Olivier Indeed, Lisa, he has made that clear as a bell. Poor George Weigel. What will he say now?
Why try so desperately to wring something you can agree with out of what increasingly appear to be remarks of a pope — carrying no magisterial weight — in a nonanswer to a journalist’s question?
Quoting myself from over at America:
By your interpretation of the pope’s comments, it would seem to be the case that prostitutes using condoms to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS would be taking a small step in the right direction, but prostitutes using condoms to prevent pregnancy would be taking a step in the wrong direction.
See the attached link for an article by Rhonheimer submitted to chiesa just before the CDF note. It is particularly interesting for the discussion of what he sees as the importance of the questions at stake.
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1346021?eng=y
So the Pope actually is saying
Prostitutes who spread infection sin against the 5th as well as the 6th commandment, so their desire to limit the fatal effect of their behavior is a step in the right moral direction.
Infected husbands who have sex with their wives are not sinning against the 6th commandment, so their wives merit no protection. This is the position of Cardinal Caraffa, John Paul II’s speechwriter. He told such wives that they may not refuse their marital duty, may not protect themselves and must simply trust in Providence. John Paul II must have been happy with this, as he elevated the man to Cardinal Archbishop of Bologna. It seems that Benedict XVI is happy with it too.
Are they all stark, raving mad?
Is madness the inevitable result of a court where you are surrounded with people who acclaim you as Infallible?
Remember that those who acclaim sacred texts as Inerrant also go mad — practicing genocide in the name of God.
The problems of the Vatican are far deeper than we have even begun to realize.
Oh, dear, oh, dear. Things over at Chiesa have turned testy with Fr. Rohnheimer replying to Luke Gormally’s criticism of his (Rohnheimer’s) earlier statement about the Light of the World controversy.
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1346021?eng=y
Joseph,
It is said that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions — that is, one often underestimates the adverse consequences of behavior that foregoes ethical norms and focuses only on perceived beneficial outcomes. However, there ought to be some kind of flipside expression for the application of pure, logically and morally correct reasoning in a way that creates clearly absurd, unjust and catastrophic results for people. This is an example of that kind of reasoning.
David G., thanks for the post and the links. The Sunday Visitor link also contains a link to Fr. Rhonheimer’s original Tablet article, which I find to be very helpful – it might be helpful to read it first, and then the Our Sunday Visitor interview in which he explicates some aspects of that article. http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/2284
I think I’m becoming a fan of Fr. Rhonheimer – it makes me more eager to plow through that 24 page analysis by M Therese Lysaught in the Phoenix thread. :-)
Lisa F – I’m coming around to seeing things your way on the question of an HIV-infected spouse. Fr. Rhonheimer’s distinction between the prophylactic and the contraceptive intentions of condom use are clicking for me.
I think the essay-response from Rhonheimer that Ann Olivier and Bill Murphy linked to above is also worth a read. I agree that he gets the best of the argument.
“However, there ought to be some kind of flipside expression for the application of pure, logically and morally correct reasoning in a way that creates clearly absurd, unjust and catastrophic results for people.::
Barbara –
The logic isn’t the problem. Logic is limited by the truth of its premises. Without true premises logic can lead to perversity. A logically impeccable argument without true premises has about as much value as a bridge anchored in air.
It’s mainly the lack of criticism of our own premises that leads to folly, and criticism of our own premises *requires* logic. So the problem is not too much logic but not enough. And of course, there is the problem of our lack of humility — our own unwillingness to submit our own views to the laser-like illumination of logic. We typically avoid such pain.
Yes, compassion is often a great, great help in revealing the wrongness of our thinking, and it seems to me we are morally obligated not to ignore such feelings. But compassion also sometimes has its limitations, for instance, being to easy on a sick child who doesn’t want to take its medicine. Further, as I see it, there is often no sure way to discover what is both good and true. Life ain’t easy. (Existential sigh.)
David G. –
I think that Fr. Rhonheimer’s letter/article at Chiesa is a first-rate one. Splendid teacher on a difficult topic. But I don’t think his article is without fault. I think he too oversimplifies. He denies that he thinks that the mental intention of an act is the only determinant of what is right, but I don’t think he gives enough attention to the objective intention/telos of an act. Both need to be considered.
He makes a major new point about contraception — that Humanae Vitae’s argument against it is not based on the over-simplified classic argument regarding “the natural end” of the physical act of intercourse, but, rather, Paul VI’s argument is a new one. It has different premises, premises relying on both some valued old metaphysical principles and some contemporary biological science. Very, very interesting. I don’t remember any other theologian making that point before.
It’s also interesting how subservient he is to the CDF, how willing he is to say he might be wrong. I don’t see how someone can be that docile, but his humility is very appealing, and I can see why the Pope is apparently paying a lot of attention to him. Splendid mind willing to be self-critical — who could ask for anything more in a moral theologian. And I must admit I have revised my opinion of Opus Dei a teensy bit because of him :-)
Ann,
If you don’t mind, let me try to clarify your comment re Fr R and intention.
Following Aquinas as he does, the good and evil of actions is measured according to the rule of right reason, which is the reason that virtuously directs acts to good ends, consistent with the true ultimate end. Here the orders of right reason, natural law and the virtues coincide. Now an “intention” is simply an act of the will regarding an end, and the will is the rational appetite, getting its object from reason. Thus, an act of intending an end is good if that end is according to reason, and bad if the end is irrational, inconsistent with the true ultimate end, etc. Fr R is not just talking about such intending.
In considering the morality of human action, we consider not just intending ends but choosing means to achieve those ends. Thus, one can intend an end in itself (i.e. prior to having delibrated a means to the end), or one can intend it as chosen through a means. The “means” one chooses (a human act ordered to achieve the end) also needs to be according to reason. Regarding the object of the act, this is the “exterior act” (the choice plus its execution) insofar as this is ordered to the (proximate) end intended (by the “interrior act” of intending).
So one can choose to use a condom for the end of “preventing procreation” or for the end of “preventing the transmission of disease.” They are different human acts, each susceptible of analysis based on their conformity to reason.
You are right that in the Chiesa article, he doesn’t go through a distinct discussion of Thomistic “action theory,” which would have made these kind of points clear, but there is a very sophisticated approach to these matters behind what he writes on chiesa.
Your statement about objective intention/telos might mean something different than his approach, however. Central for some thinkers is the notion of the “finis operis” as “that toward which the act the physical act naturally tends,” but this is not part of Aquinas’s approach as followed by Fr R.
I hope this helps!
I had the further thought that some of you would be interested in reading this, which I wrote in 2007, drawing on Rhonheimer’s work on contraception. The last part just sketches his approach, which is seen more in the chiesa piece. A followup piece, unpacking the positive presentation in some detail–and in dialogue with critics–is forthcoming. http://www.pcj.edu/journal/essays/14_2_Murphy.pdf
I am impressed by Fr. Rhonheimer’s temperment and tone. I very much appreciate his approach to dialogue but after reading it I am still persuaded that HV is unreasonable in its universal applicability. Fr. R writes:
I agree with the latter statement but not the former.
The basic lines of HV as I see them are not correct. Fr. R writes that HV “defined contraception not in traditional terms of frustrating natural processes and patterns, but in terms of its intentional opposition to the bonum prolis, the specific marital “good of offspring”.
I am looking at this from a male frame of reference, although modeling it on St. Joseph. I think that a husband needs to also consider the “good of the spouse” and take the totality of the situation in mind. In the situation of St. Joseph, if we accept Catholic tradition (small t), there was no sexual relationship with Mary and he accepted his responsibility to raise Jesus and maintain a chaste relationship. But the basis for his choice, was not, it can be speculated, was because they needed to focus exclusively on the child and participate in God’s saving work in that fashion.
But Catholic moral theology does not support chastity within marriage, a la Ghandi or for that matter St. Joseph, as an ideal. On the contrary, Catholic moral theology sees it as an injustice to withhold that good from a spouse.
Yet, it would be a further injustice to the spouse if she gets pregnant. There are many, many such examples. In such a case contraception is not only a good but a duty and failure to contracept would constitute a sin against justice.
Some of my post was interrupted. St Joseph was not chaste because he saw contraception as wrong. Maybe perpetual abstinence itself was his form of contraception which Catholic moral theology does not see as an ideal in marriage.
Bill Murphy –
Thanks very much for the clear exposition of Fr. Rhonheimer’s theory of the internal action of choosing. It’s seems to be the same sort of Thomistic theory that I was taught, and I think it’s Thomas at his best. (Many, many years ago I heard Phillipa Foot lecture on Thomas’ shall we say phenomenology of the process of choosing and acting out, She had apparently just discovered how great he was on the subject. It was nice to hear him appreciated by a non-Thomist :-)
However, I wonder about R.’s theory of objective contraceptive actions and ends. In the Chiesa article R. rejects Thomas’ theory and sides with Paul VI’s view. Siince I have problems with *both* Paul and Thomas on that point, I look forward to Fr. R’s big new ethics book coming out in Feb.
Are you by chance the co-author with Fr. R. of the work on the ethics of procreation?
Bill Murphy –
P. S. I can’t access your article at that site. Any suggestions?
George D. –
I agree that the Paul VI/JP II/Rhonheimer criticism of contraception fails. It is predicated on the assumption that the procreative and unitive ends cannot be separated. That is patently false.
Or did they mean that the two ends cannot be *morally* separated? But what does that MEAN?? I await the new Rhonheimer book :-)
I read HV’s moral argument as expressed in HV 12, viz.: “This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”
This argument seems like a really poor reading of human sexual biology. The pope argues that since sex CAN be both loving and procreative, it MUST be both loving and at least open to procreation in every act. Lots of progressive moralists want to consider the whole sexual relationship rather than each sex act, a stance which HV explicitly rules out on the basis of this argument. However, even those in the middle or middle right would need to acknowledge, I think, that seeing human sex as inevitably being procreative in meaning, is an unreal reading of the act. If morality is to be based in reality, then our best scientific knowledge should inform it. If nothing else, the fact that human ovulation is naturally hidden (i.e., women are sexually receptive throughout the menstrual cycle, which makes NO sense if the meaning of sex is somehow intrinsically procreative,) isn’t a bad place to start. Heck, you could argue that ferreting out by careful monitoring of mucus, temperature, etc., is thwarting what is natural to human sex–the hiddenness of ovulation.
Let me play devil’s advocate: what if the fact that women are sexually receptive throughout the cycle is a remnant of the Fall, and paradigmatic of human concupiscence? Then we’re back with Augustine, and faithful couple should abstain except when the woman is fertile, so the couple can reasonably say they are “open” to procreation.
But if sex is good, a gift of God that unites couples, then we’re back to the unreality of the claim that sex signifies procreation in every act.
Hi Ann,
Yes, IMHO that is straight Thomas, and it seems to me the key aspects of it are being more widely understood in recent years. The main dissent from that growing consensus, it seems to me, is on 2 sides: those on the right determined to find a way to justify the more rigorous conclusions on things like the condoms question and the case of Vital conflicts; and those on the left who think Thomas can be read as a proportionalist. I think the mean is between these 2 extremes, but there are some legitimate points requiring further argumentation. I think the forthcoming MR book (The Perspective of Morality) will really upgrade the conversation as it offers a systematic articulation and defense of thomistic virtue ethics, taking into account the various interlocutors.
That link works from my computer. I’ve got IT trying to figure out if there is some reason why it doesn’t work from off campus. Otherwise, try going to http://www.pcj.edu, and follow the links for journal, past issues, 14_2, and then the essay. Or find my email under “about us” and “faculty” and I’ll send it to you.
Christmas greetings!