On condoms, the Vatican’s judicious restraint?
Word has come down via Robert Mickens at The Tablet (not available via the web) and an RNS story (posted here) that the Vatican has shelved a study undertaken years ago (at the behest of Pope Benedict) on whether it would be licit to use condoms in some cases to prevent the spread of HIV.
“There was a project, there was, but nothing serious was delivered,”said Bishop Jose Luis Redrado Marchite, secretary of the Pontifical Council for Health Care Workers, at a Vatican press conference.
Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, former head of the health care council, said in 2006 that his staff was preparing a “profound study,” requested by Pope Benedict XVI, that would consider “both the scientific and technical aspects linked to the condom, as well as the moral implications in all their amplitude.”
Catholic teaching forbids the use of condoms as a form of contraception, but no pope has definitively addressed the morality of their use to prevent AIDS and other infectious diseases.
According to Bob’s report:
Bishop Redrado called it a project that Cardinal Lozano had undertaken and then shown to the CDF. “Then the media exaggerated it, but we didn’t say anything more about it,” the bishop said. The cardinal, who retired last April, told journalists at a press briefing in November 2006 that Pope Benedict had specifically asked his council to start “a dialogue with the CDF on condoms”. At that time, he said, the council had completed a thorough study that included “an enormous rainbow” of theological and moral positions, ranging from “very rigorous” to others that were “very understanding”. There were expectations that the study might result in a Vatican affirmation that married couples where one spouse is HIV positive would have explicit church approval to use condoms to protect the uninfected spouse. Cardinal Lozano and several other church leaders had espoused such a view in the past. However, Pope Benedict and CDF officials have never given public support to that position.
At America’s blog, Austen Ivereigh isn’t so pleased with the decision, arguing that it is tantamount to “the suppression of theological truth.” He notes that most anyone you speak with at any level of the church agrees that there should be an exception for the use of condoms in such cases.
I know this is true, [Austen writes] because in 2008, while in Rome, I asked a high-ranking CDF official (it was a private conversation, so I won’t give his name) why nothing had happened with the theological report. “Everyone knows that theologically there is a strong case for clarifying that teaching,” he told me, “but there’s just no way of doing it publicly without it being misunderstood.” Do you mean, I said, that the Vatican feared the headlines that would result? “Exactly,” he said. “It would be confusing for the faithful.” But don’t you think, I pressed him, that if something is doctrinally true, that was more important than whether it was likely to be misunderstood? “But there’s just no way,” he repeated.
I sympathize with Austen Ivereigh’s position, but I wonder if this might be one of those times when doing nothing is the best thing to do. Not every teaching has to be clarified, especially if it is still “in development,” and especially if most church workers “in the trenches” of the AIDS battle are not about to stop encouraging HIV-positive partners to use condoms (or any other protections).
Moreover, pressing for a definitive answer is likely to produce not the correct but nuanced response Austen and others would like, but the “very rigorous” definition that was among the options the CDF was apparently considering. If in doubt, the CDF — which is never in doubt — likes to go with rigor, and then of course they can’t backpedal because, well, you just don’t.
So count me down as a fan of of the pope’s for not swinging at every pitch. (Hey, spring training is in full swing and it’s Lent — I can be forgiven.)
Is it true that there was a study on contraception ~40 years ago, which was suppressed because it suggested that contraception is OK? Or is that the equivalent of Catholic Urban Legend?
“I sympathize with Austen Ivereigh’s position, but I wonder if this might be one of those times when doing nothing is the best thing to do. Not every teaching has to be clarified, especially if it is still “in development,” and especially if most church workers “in the trenches” of the AIDS battle are not about to stop encouraging HIV-positive partners to use condoms (or any other protections).”
One problem with the magisterium remaining silent is that people – including those in the trenches who are passing out condoms – might, in ignorance, be enabling a grave evil. It’s difficult to understand why a set of moral principles on this question, whatever they may be, wouldn’t be discernible, regardless of the state of science. The magisterium discerned that birth control is wrong in marriage, regardless of its effectiveness. Why wouldn’t human beings be able to think through the case of an HIV-infected spouse?
I’m with Ivereigh on this.
**He notes that most anyone you speak with at any level of the church agrees that there should be an exception for the use of condoms in such cases.**
Why should anyone listen anymore to Ivereigh if he is going to make such patently false, fraudulent, and grossly dishonest statements such as this?
I guess the many bishops and priests and religious and faithful of Africa — who do not appreciate having condoms thrown at them — do not count.
Thomas — there was no suppression. The views of those pushing contraception were well known to Pope Paul and are well known to Pope Benedict, as they were well known to previous popes. Pope Paul solicited the opinions of a wide range of thought on the matter. And, having considered the views of the pro-contraception crowd, he rejected those views as unsound, as stated by him and as further explained by Pope John Paul II.
Easy, Bender…In the first place, you are quoting my paraphrase of Ivereigh, so cast me into outer darkness if you will. (Or read his post and then condemn him directly!) Or, you may want to include Benedict among the damned given that he has not seen fit to correct what you say is so wrong. In any case, many don’t believe that poisiton on an exception is wrong, and the existence of such a debate, left to right, would seem to argue for allowing discussion to continue rather than issuing blanket denunciations or blanket approvals.
Thomas, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Commission_on_Birth_Control
John Ford was an American Jesuit and a member of the commission who opposed any change in the Church’s stand on contraception and argued his case directly with Paul VI. His opposition was not based on the facts uncovered during the work of the commission or on the merits but on the fact that he thought the Church should not change it’s position, period.
From the biography John Cuthbert Ford, SJ: moral theologian at the end of the manualist era
By Eric Marcelo O. Genilo:
“John Ford insisted doubt shouldn’t even be discussed because on the matter of birth control there is no doubt. The magisterium has spoken; obedience is the only appropriate response. .. He believed that the authority of the magisterium to teach on moral matters would be seriously compromised in the teaching on contraception, expressed in the encyclical Casti connubii, were substantially changed.”
You can see a lot of this book online at http://books.google.com/
Search for the book and then look at the excerpt starting around p 135.
“John Ford insisted doubt shouldn’t even be discussed because on the matter of birth control there is no doubt. The magisterium has spoken; obedience is the only appropriate response. .. He believed that the authority of the magisterium to teach on moral matters would be seriously compromised in the teaching on contraception, expressed in the encyclical Casti connubii, were substantially changed.”
If this was Ford’s view, he must have concluded that the establishment of a large and broadly representative commission to study the matter was misconceived, since why study a question when you already know the answer. On principle he should have declined to serve, for the existence of a commission was in itself an argument there there was a genuine question to be settled, a view he could in conscience give no support to. It is too bad that theologian Ford was not aware of the oft asserted papal teaching on the taking of interest and how it later came to be dropped. Or was he?
David-
You are right on the money with this line: Not every teaching has to be clarified, especially if it is still “in development,”
In light of all the waves of reports of sex abuse by priests and the mishandling of this by many bishops. we have to realize that the Church has lost if not all then most of its credibility on issues dealing with human sexuality. A little humility might be in order.
Anthony
There’s an account of the commission on birth control in this 2000 Commonweal profile of Judge John T. Noonan (who was a participant).
Ford’s opinion as described: The magisterium has spoken; obedience is the only appropriate response.”
Once again the ambiguity of “the magisterium” rears its ugly head. Given this ambiguity no wonder practically every statement from the Vatican needs “clarification”, not to mention reversal. ..
“He (Fr. John Ford) believed that the authority of the magisterium to teach on moral matters would be seriously compromised in (should be “if”) the teaching on contraception, expressed in the encyclical Casti connubii, were substantially changed.” A clear example of CDF Rule #1: The Magisterium must never, ever admit being wrong; in very exceptional cases it is permited to admit to a lack of charity, but never to error.
Joseph Gannon: “the existence of a commission was in itself an argument there there was a genuine question to be settled.”
Excellent point. If one equates the magesterium with the papacy and says that the magesterium has spoken so nothing should be questioned, and the current occupant of the papacy publicly calls a commission and the next occupant of the papacy continues and expands it, then the argument that the magesterium has spoken is logically inconsistent. The problem (then as now) is in equating the magesterium with the papacy.
I think that the use of condoms is always a responsible moral act. Could anyone tell me what it is not?
I mean “why it is not”
Conversely, I regard the African bishops’ slogan “We say No to Condoms” as childish and destructive. The same goes for the condom-burning ceremonies in the Philippines and elsewhere. It is cultic, primitive, on a par with sects that forbid their members to use medicine.
“If one equates the magesterium with the papacy”
The magisterium – teaching authority – is apostolic. The bishops, in communion with the pope, possess it.
“Not every teaching has to be clarified, especially if it is still “in development,””
Anthony, perhaps that is true. But the stories linked to by David G. suggest that it’s not even particularly “in development” – apparently, development has been suspended. That is a shame, because the need for further reflection about condom use is urgent.
A couple of years ago, the Holy See issued a lengthy document on the fate of children who die before baptism. It rehearsed the many theories and arguments around this issue over the last 2,000 years, and then in effect concluded by saying, “we don’t know the answer”. So, in a sense, nothing was decided. Yet the document served some good purposes, istm – if nothing else, than to prise open the minds of those who are convinced that one particular solution, e.g. limbo, is settled theology. After reading that document, one is left with two impressions: “we don’t really know, but have hope”. And that is an honest and good thing for the church to say.
A teaching document of this nature on condom use, reviewing and assessing the many aspects of the issue, even if it doesn’t leave the reader with a simple rule to live by like “no meat on Fridays during Lent”, could be of great help for people who live in the gray areas of condom use to decide conscientiously what they should do.
I think the Vatican definitely should speak, even at the risk that their teaching would be misconstrued.
First, it would actually clarify the Church’s teaching, in which, in this case, no substantive change is proposed. Using condoms to limit the spread of HIV is not properly construed as a contraceptive act–the end in mind is to preserve the health of one’s partner–contraception is, as it were, a side-effect. Similarly, a woman who has medical cause to have a hysterectomy is having a medically-indicated hysterectomy. She’s also permanently sterilized, but that was, again, a side-effect. Church teaching, if nothing else the tried-and-true double effect, supports both the use of condoms to protect oneself from deadly infection by one’s sexual partner and other medically-indicated interventions that happen also to interfere with fertility.
Secondly, it is widely thought that present Church teaching–in line with statements of many bishops, including some in AIDS hotspots–believes that enforcing its ban on contraception even where contraception is not directly intended is more important than to speak to a means that may preserve the lives of many many innocent human beings. There are the lives of the couple, of course, the uninfected partner is at grave risk. But don’t forget the kids? What happens to the kids when both parents are dead?
A pro-life person would shout from the rooftops that while sexual ethics is important and the Church remains anti-contraception that: 1. this is not contraception directly, and 2. life is the most basic right. While the Vatican maintains a delicate silence, its anti-contraception stance is widely invoked to prevent the ready access to condoms, mostly by seeking to influence government policies on the question. This is a tremendously scandalous situation–in decades to come, the Church’s silence on this point will be seen as a complicity in the unnecessary deaths of uncounted thousands.
That’s not to say that many folks think the teaching on contraception should be addressed again, but that’s not the issue here, really. Also, I assume that the magisterium would follow prior teaching and draw a distinction between condom use and contraception, and so say out loud that condoms are OK for this purpose.
Jim Pauwels just about had me convinced to reverse my initial instinct, but my concern, Lisa, is that the curia would not follow prior teaching as you assume, out of concern for the possible unintended consequences. Is the case for condom use in this instance so open-and-shut that even the CDF would grant it?
The efficacy of condoms for the prevention of AIDS is a question of medical practice on which neither the CDF nor the bishops nor the Pope have any special competence.
Interesting item from the Tablet in 2007, comments from Cardinal Turkson who is the new head of Justice & Peace at the Vatican:
Tablet 20 Oct 2007:
Church in the World
20 October 2007
Ghana
African church leader advocates pastoral approach on condom use
James Roberts
A ghanaian cardinal has expressed a softer line on the possible use of condoms in the fight against Aids than has been voiced by some of his fellow senior churchmen. Cardinal Peter Turkson, Archbishop of Cape Coast, said this week that the best way to advise married couples on whether they should use condoms, if one of them is HIV-positive, is to help the couple to make their own decision.
Asked whether condoms were ever an appropriate way of dealing with a situation where an infected man could infect his wife, or an infected wife her husband, Cardinal Turkson said: “For me, I always recognise that this ultimately is a counselling situation. In a counselling situation one does not decide for the client. You just help the client to take the decision which [he or she] will be at peace with.”
The cardinal appeared to distance himself from remarks made by some African bishops that have focused on the supposed unreliability of condoms as a means of preventing the transmission of HIV. “Naturally there will be people in our part of the world who try to address the situation by attacking the condom itself,” Cardinal Turkson said. “So that is there.”
But he pointed out that the Church’s position on condom use is tied in with its position on contraception, and the question that had to be asked was whether there was a therapeutic use of the condom that could be seen as not contraceptive. The cardinal said that there were bishops’ conferences in Africa seriously debating this issue.
The cardinal cautioned against issuing a hard and fast instruction. “I will never stand up in the pulpit and say, ‘Because of HIV/Aids you can resort to condom use between you and your wife’,” he said. “I will only speak in person-to-person counselling, allowing those who can, to choose for love of their partner to abstain, and those who also for love of their partner may want to use this way.”
The cardinal is visiting England to highlight World Mission Sunday tomorrow.
“If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty, I will do so. I like to think I am a gentleman, but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me.”
Special Counsel for the Army Joseph N. Welch to Senator Joseph R. McCarthy during the Army-McCarthy Hearings (1952).
“Cardinal Peter Turkson, Archbishop of Cape Coast, said this week that the best way to advise married couples on whether they should use condoms, if one of them is HIV-positive, is to help the couple to make their own decision.”
A pastor of souls less concerned with his career might have had the fortitude to state directly that condom use in this case is clearly permissable (it is a cut-and-dried, prima facie instance of Double Effect as anyone who has taken MT-101 knows).
Not only will the CDF never admit it is wrong, but it won’t even tell the truth in this case lest it give the impression that it is admitting it is wrong. This is a scandal, nay, a crime calling to heaven for vengence (remember those?)
Jim Pauwels says “The magisterium – teaching authority – is apostolic. The bishops, in communion with the pope, possess it.” If that’s the case, then the magesterium has not spoken on the question of artificial birth control, only the papacy; a huge difference.
“the end in mind is to preserve the health of one’s partner”
Forgive me if this isn’t well thought out, as I’m in a rush right now. Isn’t there a bit of logical sleight-of-hand in the above? Surely, in the church’s view of marital sex, there are twin ends in a marital sexual act: marital unity and procreation. “Preserving the health of one’s partner”, properly speaking, isn’t the end of the act – is it? Particularly when there are ways of preserving the partner’s health that don’t interfere with the proper ends? It may be the spouse’s intention, but that is not the same as the end of the act itself. Or am I wrong about that?
If Paul VI listened to his own Pontifical Commission on Birth Control we wouldn’t be having this discussion and the hierarchy wouldn’t have distorted its thinking on the topic for the past 45 years, gutting its own authority in the process.
Here’s a bit from an article from 1965:
“Consequently, no consideration relevant to the realization of human nature, for example, the world population problem, financial inability to support more children, psychological and physical health of the marriage partners, etc., is extrinsic to the determination of the moral goodness or evil of contraception in terms of Thomist natural law. On the contrary, such considerations are necessarily included in that determination. … For, since we are concerned here with the moral structure of human sexuality-and not simply its biological structure-in the case of contraception, as in the case of rhythm, such natural reasons may lead one to the conclusion that his nature under these conditions can only achieve greater realization through the practice of contraception whereas to pursue the opposite course of action would be to frustrate such realization.”
From Contraception and the Logical Structure of the Thomist Natural Law Theory
by Richard H. Beis
Ethics, Vol. 75, No. 4. (Jul., 1965), pp. 277-284.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2379725
I think Lisa’s post is a good example of why the Vatican might be reluctant to “clarify” its teaching on the matter. If a professor of moral theology can get it backward, then the rest of the faithful could be misled too. For example, to say that contraception is simply a “side effect” of using a condom, assuming your intent is not to infect your spouse, is silly. Contraception is part and parcel of using a condom–you can’t separate the two. It’s like saying I didn’t intend to kill you when I shot you, I just like the sound of a bullet piercing skin, so that makes it ok. Moreover, there are ways not to infect your spouse that do not require artificial contraception. And, of course, the use of artificial contraception does not eliminate the risk of infecting your spouse.
The analogy with a medically-indicated hysterectomy fails. It would only be analogous if a woman deliberately put herself in the condition of needing a hysterectomy–no one would argue that’s a moral option.
“I regard the African bishops’ slogan “We say No to Condoms” as childish and destructive. The same goes for the condom-burning ceremonies in the Philippines and elsewhere. It is cultic, primitive, on a par with sects that forbid their members to use medicine.”
As Jim P. and Mark have noted, condoms do not = medicine in the eyes of Church teaching. Sex is for procreation, not recreation, not necessary to the expression of love for the beloved. If you have AIDS, married or not, prevent the spread of the disease by abstinence. I don’t see what needs to be clarified. Agree with it or not, the teaching seems crystal clear to me.
While I understand that the number of abstainers is up, I’m wonder to what extent that’s because the how the disease is spread is now better understood rather than that there’s a wholesale buy-in to Catholic sexual teaching. Though, where motivated by Catholic teaching, abstinence offers a sense of dignity and caritas.
All that said, I don’t believe that women who are pressured or forced into having sex with husbands who are or may be infected should go unprotected or the disease passed on to innocent children who may be conceived.
That doesn’t require that the Church get into the condom distribution biz, of course.
Unfortunately, church authorities are even more brutal than you realize. The present archbishop of Bologna, Cardinal Caffarra, former speech-writer for John Paul II, loudly claimed that women with infected spouses should NOT try to be protected by condoms and should NOT refuse their marital duty. What should they do? Have unprotected sex with their husbands while trusting in Providence.
This is not some hole-in-corner eccentric, but one of the pillars of the Church. It shows how the false teaching is turning the Catholic Church into a weird, destructive cult.
It seems clear to me that Austin Ivereigh’s view as to the morality of using a condom to prevent spreading infection is perfectly sound. It is a textbook example of the principle of double effect. Anyone who has doubt should reread Ivereigh with care and without presuppositions so far as that is possible.
Contraception is part and parcel of using a condom–you can’t separate the two.
Mark,
What do you mean by “contraception”?
There is no objection in Catholic medical ethics against women using the birth-control pill for noncontraceptive purposes. Would you say contraception is part and parcel of using the birth-control pill? Also, what if the wife is past child-bearing age? Please correct me if I am wrong — and I hope I am wrong, because it seems ridiculous to me — but my understanding is that the presumed prohibition against using condoms would apply equally to a couple who can conceive and a couple who cannot. How can there be contraception — deliberate prevention of conception — when conception is not possible?
My understanding is that the use of the pill is permissible to treat conditions such as endometriosis because, although it will prevent ovulation, there is no contraceptive intent. It is intent that matters. How can you say a married couple, one of whom is infected with AIDS, who would dearly love to conceive a child, would have contraceptive intent if they used condoms to prevent the transmission of AIDS?
The Catholic Church and many individual Catholics seem to have a “thing” about condoms, rendering them irrational on the topic.
It occurs to me to wonder if there really is an answer to the question whether it is licit for a married couple to use condoms to prevent the transmission of AIDS within a marriage. Maybe it is a meaningless question. Suppose there really is an answer — in God’s mind, I guess — and a married couple gets the answer wrong and uses (or does’t use) condoms in absolutely good faith. What is the consequence? It strikes me that they a committing a “technical violation” of no discernible importance. Suppose the wife has had a hysterectomy or is past childbearing age. Is God really so obsessed with where a husband ejaculates, where the sperm goes, and what becomes of it that the Magesterium must discern His thinking on this matter lest an unfortunate married couple gets it “wrong”? I am not sure I see what it has to do with morality. “Should we not,” asks Bishop Geoffrey Robinson, “look at sexual morality in terms of the good or harm done to persons and the relationships between them rather than in terms of a direct offense against God?”
Maybe the whole approach of making rules about sex based on where sperm must be deposited is misguided.
Until the crisis of sexual abuse by clergy is resolved, I don’t plan on paying attention to declarations from the church hierarchy on topics having to do with sexuality. Clearly they do not understand sexuality. They do not know what is true, what is honorable, what is right, what is pure, what is lovely in such matters.
“Cardinal Caffarra, former speech-writer for John Paul II, loudly claimed that women with infected spouses should NOT try to be protected by condoms and should NOT refuse their marital duty. ”
Then he’s a moron.
Amen Claire. I don’t plan on paying attention to declarations from the church hierarchy on topics having to do with sexuality until they start actually listening to the ‘sense of the faithful.’ Until they do, they are self-condemned.
Like Orsy says in Receiving the Council:
“God has entrusted the history of salvation, the subject of our belief, to the memory of the entire people. God has endowed the church with the prudence that is necessary in daily life to reach salvation. Some portion of that infallibility and indefectibility belongs to the non-ordained–otherwise it cannot belong to the ‘whole.’
“The bishops, and in a special way the bishop of Rome, are the authentic witnesses of our Tradition, but the history of God’s self-revelation and mighty deeds lives in the memory of all the people. Further, the episcopal college as a corporation and the individual bishops in their diocese are mandated ‘in the Spirit’ to bring and sustain ‘tranquility and order’ so that the communities may live in peace and the church may prosper, but the practical prudence needed for fair and balanced judgments is spread among all the members.” (p. 43-4)
Arguing about condom use for AIDS to me is arguing about the wrong question. No matter how logical the arguments for or against it are, they sit on a bogus foundation, which is the Church’s attitude toward contraception, arrived at without input from the faithful (or even the bishops, as it was taken off the agenda at Vatican II).
It puts me in mind of the early Constitutional Convention arguments about how slaves should be counted for purposes of taxation and representation — whether they are counted as 1/2 a person or 3/4 a person or 3/5 a person. Regardless of the logic of the arguments, they sit on a bogus foundation.
I think this question is totally a red herring invented by Westerners.
Let’s try to imagine some scenarios:
A young couple is getting married and one of them has HIV. Are they never going to have children, then? How many Africans don’t ever want to try to have children at all? Given the stigma of HIV, and the possibility of infection, would you marry someone who was honest with you and told you that he had HIV?
Okay, an older married couple with many children already and one has HIV. It takes 6 months for HIV to show up on tests, right? Is your partner already infected? How many Africans are even being regularly tested? To tell your spouse that you have HIV is basically to tell your spouse that you cheated. How often is this being dealt with honestly?
Does this question on the teaching come from African clergy or laity? I don’t think it does because it is predicated on Western expectations.
The use of condoms in Africa (or anywhere else, for that matter) is most relevant for people practicing in the sex trade, and those buying their services, many of whom are married men working long distances from home who then go home and infect their wives. The whole issue of “marital” use of condoms would be a non-issue if men used condoms for their extra-marital sexual activities. This is why Japanes sex tourists in Thailand are not in the vanguard of one of the worst HIV epidemics in their own country. I guess it goes beyond the ken of African bishops to recognize exactly how non-observant a good chunk of their faithful are when it comes to fidelity but it is a testament of their moral irrelevance that the bishops spend more time worrying about the sin of using condoms rather than the sin of visiting prostitutes.
“Let’s try to imagine some scenarios: ”
I do agree that we need to consider the multiplicity of scenarios in trying to sort this out. For example: while much of this discussion has focused on the married-couple-where-one-spouse-is-infected scenario, we shouldn’t suppose that marital sex is the only scenario for which condoms are being distributed in Africa.
“Sex is for procreation, not recreation, not necessary to the expression of love for the beloved.”
Hi, Jean, I’m not sure if I completely agree with this – “recreation” is a somewhat ambiguous term, but I’d think that the church expects that marriages are to be consummated, and recognizes that the human sex drive and the desire to please the spouse are natural urges that can be “channeled” to good ends via sacramental marriage.
I truly don’t know what to think about the infected-spouse scenario. It’s a conundrum. I don’t know if there is an answer, other than celibacy. I guess ultimately, medical treatment to either cure the infection or render it uninfectable would be best.
I’ve been hearing about Japanese complacency about AIDS for the last 25 years, but in fact Japan has not had any AIDS epidemic. The reason is simple: Japanese people have a high rate of condom use and have never seen any reason to think the use of condoms is immoral — au contraire. Since, as the above postings show, those who call the shots in the Catholic world are morons with no understanding of sexuality, I think it is good to consult the practical wisdom of the Japanese.
Wikipedia confirms that Japan has the highest rate of condom usage in the world, and that 80% of contraception among married women is through condoms.
And guess what? Pro-life sites claim that despite 80% condom use, AIDS is soaring in Japan: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/jun/05060610.html
First, to clarify–I didn’t say condoms were a medical device–I offered another situation in which the magisterium accepts contraceptive (or sterilizing) acts without a qualm. A medically-indicated hysterectomy is “contraceptive,” but only as a side effect. Some cancer treatments likewise. It’s double effect.
Like all “algorithms” of moral reasoning (just war is another example,) double effect isn’t perfect. Mark demonstrates one weakness of the tradition–how is the act described? If the “act” here is “contraception,” then, under current teaching, it’s already wrong. If the act is “wearing a condom during intercourse,” then we have a double effect question.
But “contraception” is a matter of intent. I’d say, not the specific act. In theory I’d say you can’t say a condom is always intended for contraception. Condoms are manufactured in all kinds of ways to make sex more enjoyable for partners. A man might (though I doubt this is common) use a condom with fun-enhancing features, then remove it before he ejaculates. That’d be fine, right? So the moral question isn’t really about whether a person might ever wear a condom for sex without contraceptive intent. He might. The description of the act is trying to portray intent, and it’s not so easy to do that with most acts. “Wearing a condom” is not defined by anyone as intrinsically evil. Intent is important in the moral meaning of the act in all cases short of intrinsically evil acts.
But let’s get real. The question of condom use is not one of contraception, but of protecting the life of one’s sex partner, and, by extension, the well-being of one’s children. Sex in our tradition is thought to have two “ends,” the union of the spouses and openness to procreation. While spouses can express love in many ways, sex is not trivial in that union. Further, women don’t always have the ability to say no to their husbands. It is POSSIBLE that they might be able to negotiate condom use, especially if there is a strong public-health message and social support for doing so.
And more–the discussion of condoms, the strong push against their use, despite their proven efficacy in helping to control the spread of AIDS, is indeed a red herring. Limiting the spread of AIDS requires attention to poverty, the role of women, governmental corruption, etc. The magisterium might well say “of course, if condoms save lives, protect children, of course they’re morally licit in these cases. We believe in abstinence for the unmarried, but let’s at least protect the innocent spouses and kids of the married while we encourage abstinence outside marriage. And let’s turn our attention to the real issues here.”
Yes–the practical wisdom of the Japanese: let’s colonize thailand for our sexual pleasure because non-Japanese asians are disposable and poor.
The practical wisdom of the Japanese, and the Thais as well, is to avoid or contain one of the worst epidemics in modern history among their own population. Of course, exploitation of Thai women and girls is immoral and wrong on many levels, and the Japanese are certainly not the only culprits, but all things being equal, these women are better off when their chance of catching a fatal disease is minimized. For one thing, it allows them to live long enough to put their own children through school, a chance many of them never had.
I don’t think that the reason Africans don’t use condoms has much to do with the various teachings of the Church. Most Africans are, of course, not Catholic. Further, I have heard that Africans’ failure to use condoms has to do with African ideas about masculinity.
Jean says: Sex is for procreation, not recreation, not necessary to the expression of love for the beloved.
Jim says: I’m not sure if I completely agree with this – “recreation” is a somewhat ambiguous term, but I’d think that the church expects that marriages are to be consummated, and recognizes that the human sex drive and the desire to please the spouse are natural urges that can be “channeled” to good ends via sacramental marriage.
Jean says: “Consummation” means one time, no? As far as I can see (and I’ve looked), the CCC requires no specific frequency of the marital act. Moreover, I doubt that Church recognition that sexual expression can be “channeled to good ends via sacramental marriage” implies that the pleasurable part of such congress trumps its its stated teachings about openness to life. Ergo, if you’re infected with an incurable STD (or if you have a condition that would render pregnancy a risk, or were in some other state in which sex would imperil your health), you abstain.
JC, I don’t know why the use of condoms in Africa is so low. Expense, certainly, is probably one reason. I read that in South Africa, one doctor’s efforts to persuade miners (notorious for frequenting sex workers) to use condoms at the beginning of the uptick of HIV in that country, were met with hostility, including accusations that, as a white man, he was trying to prevent dark skinned people from reproducing. He said that a decade later, when people found it much easier to grasp the horror of the epidemic, resistance to condoms had gone down considerably.
So it’s almost certainly a combination of economic and cultural factors, education, distrust of western “ideas” for Africans, and so on. Whether Church doctrine plays a role in an individual’s decision to use condoms, the Church ITSELF plays a role in social acceptance of the use of condoms when it publicly dismisses the potential of condoms to reduce disease, or impedes the effort of the government or clinics to provide condoms at low cost. If it just stopped doing those things, without regard to its doctrinal statements, it would materially improve the situation at least in some countries.
“As far as I can see (and I’ve looked), the CCC requires no specific frequency of the marital act. ”
Another regrettable (or welcome!) example of magisterial reticence :-)
I think this question is totally a red herring invented by Westerners.
JC,
Well, yes. Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Lozano Barragán are Westerners.
This excerpt explains how the issue arose and how the report was commissioned. As it says, the study was both scientific and theological. Although the article below doesn’t say so, I got the distinct impression from reading other articles about the study that the people preparing it were actually working with married couples using condoms to determine if they provided adequate protection. I can only assume the conclusion was that condoms, used correctly and consistently by a married couple, were considered to provide sufficient protection so that it was reasonable of married couples to use them. If the conclusion had been that condoms don’t prevent HIV infection, those findings would certainly have been released.
I do agree that we need to consider the multiplicity of scenarios in trying to sort this out.
Jim,
No, there are only two scenarios. First, an HIV+ wife and an HIV- husband. Second, an HIV- wife and an HIV+ husband. The study that was shelved was not about how condoms should and should not be used in general. “The question the study addresses in particular is that of couples united in sacramental marriage, in which one of the spouses suffers from AIDS.” See the article I link to above. It was a very narrowly focused study. There were three possible conclusions. First, condoms don’t offer enough protection to prevent AIDS transmission in married couples, so the theology of it all is irrelevant. Second, condoms provide sufficient protection, but it is immoral to use them. Third, condoms provide sufficient protection, and it is okay to use them.
One can see why the Vatican would not like to announce the second finding. Yes, condoms will protect you, but — sorry folks — you may not use them.
One can also see why the Vatican would not like to announce the third finding. Even though it would not be a reversal, it would look like one to many people, and when you claim to be infallible, you don’t even want to give the appearance of reversing yourself.
While David has a point to make, the need to uphold the magisterium as a “third leg” of the deposit of faith overrides any consideration of the truthfulness of the issues raised here.
The fear is that confidence in the teachings of the Church will collapse if even a chink in the armor seems t oappear – but that confidenc ehas already collapsed and seen many move on.
is this real leadership?
There are 120 million Japanese. I am not aware that the proportion of Japanese who behave badly in a context of exploitative sex compares unfavorably with that of Americans who so the same. Trotting out an anti-Japanese stereotype is just as unfair as trotting out the equivalent anti-American stereotype (which goes all the way back to Madame Butterfly, not to mention the post-war black legends of GI rapists, or the AIDS era images of Americans).
As Archbishop Williams points out in one of his annual AIDS messages, the churches are the only organizations in Africa well-equipped to further AIDS education. If the Catholic Church throws its weight against AIDS education the consequences are grave.
Barbara said “Whether Church doctrine plays a role in an individual’s decision to use condoms, the Church ITSELF plays a role in social acceptance of the use of condoms when it publicly dismisses the potential of condoms to reduce disease, or impedes the effort of the government or clinics to provide condoms at low cost. If it just stopped doing those things, without regard to its doctrinal statements, it would materially improve the situation at least in some countries.”
I take your point. I remember Cardinal Arinze said something kooky about condoms, but other than that, is the hierarchy in Africa dismissive of condoms? The quote of some bishop above seems to suggest not.
David Nickol said: “I can only assume the conclusion was that condoms, used correctly and consistently by a married couple, were considered to provide sufficient protection so that it was reasonable of married couples to use them. If the conclusion had been that condoms don’t prevent HIV infection, those findings would certainly have been released.”
Thanks for the link. I didn’t know anything about the context. I hope it all did come out of African pastoral work, and not, as you see here in the comments, out of the Western liberal/conservative contraception debate.
Maybe condoms are actually not effective in this situation. For example, if condoms are 99 percent effective, then isn’t the healthy partner going to get HIV on the hundreth time of intercourse, more or less? Again, I just don’t think condoms are going to help this couple over the long haul, although I completely agree that it would be licit for such a couple to use condoms. This is why I still think it is a red herring. I would like to know more about the couples that were working with this Good Samaritan group.
Maybe condoms are actually not effective in this situation. For example, if condoms are 99 percent effective, then isn’t the healthy partner going to get HIV on the hundreth time of intercourse, more or less?
JC,
There is a statistic that has been around for a long time saying that the odds of AIDS infection for one act of sexual intercourse are 1 in 500. So suppose 1 out of every 100 condoms break. The odds that AIDS will be transmitted that 1 time in 100 are 1 in 500. Those are reasonably small odds. The 1-in-500 statistic dates to the days before work was done on determining the relationship of the rate of transmission to the “viral load.” The lower the viral load (detectable amount of the virus in whatever bodily fluid is pertinent), the lower the risk of transmission. Drug therapies used to treat AIDS nowadays can bring the viral load down so far that the virus is undetectable. So for a married couple, if one spouse is HIV+ but under appropriate treatment and has a low or undetectable viral load, if that couple uses condoms consistently and correctly, the odds of transmission are probably close to zero.
I find it hard to believe the Vatican would simply set the study aside if the data they came up with demonstrated that relying on condoms under the circumstances studied would be risky. If the study produced valid scientific data that it was dangerous for married couples in these circumstances to use condoms, then that data should be published. The two questions the study investigated were (1) is it safe and (2) is it licit. If the answer to the first question is that it is not safe, who needs to know the answer to the second question?
I chronicled some attitudes of African bishops here: http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/05/a-lethal-game-pope-african-bishops-and-the-aids-epidemic.html
http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2010/02/philippine-bishops-call-for-sacking.html
Wonder what posterity will think of the massive expenditure of Catholic energy in the war against condoms over the last 40 years. How did we succumb to this mania?
David Nickol,
Thank you. I did not know about transmission rates being so low. I guess they don’t emphasize that in high school sex ed because it could actually embolden people. It is rather amazing that the disease is so epidemic, then? I googled a bit and there are studies that show that using a condom when your partner is HIV+ is helpful. And, there was this study about how transmission rates change depending on the stage of the infection: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15809897
Your patient replies have convinced me that this is not a red herring. Although as Lisa Fullam noted, there are a lot of other factors that probably could use our focus besides condoms.
David Nichol, are you sure about that 1 in 500 chance of infection. This article, highlighted by Andrew Sullivan, put the risk at 1.43% in the case of anal intercourse: http://citizenchris.typepad.com/citizenchris/2010/02/needtoknow-info-on-safer-sex.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CitizenCrain+%28Citizen+Crain%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
Fr. O Leary,
The 1 in 500 chance is for a single act of unprotected, heterosexual intercourse.
I see the 1 in 500 chance is also given for a single unprotected act of other kinds here: http://www.netwellness.org/healthtopics/aidshiv/HIVoralsex.cfm
This seems to me to be a statistic extremely difficult to establish. Is there a thoroughly authoritative estimate?
This seems to me to be a statistic extremely difficult to establish. Is there a thoroughly authoritative estimate?
There seem to be many, many different estimates, and from what I have read, different rates of transmission are found in different populations. Here is a study I keep bumping into whenever I do searches on the topic. I wouldn’t exactly want to bet my life on Wikipedia, but this article has a table that lists risks of various acts. There are so many variables that I am not sure anything resembling a thoroughly authoritative estimate is possible. But it seems clear to me that the risk for a couple using condoms consistently and correctly in which the infected person is well controlled on medication is low. As I said before, the study itself was supposed to make a determination on this question, and I think if the Vatican had in its hands a solid study to show transmission under these circumstances was riskier than we thought, they would certainly have publicized the data. I can’t imagine the Vatican keeping data under wraps that would discredit condoms.
The Vatican website displays a long screed by the late Cardinal Trujillo arguing that condoms are unreliable.