All over the Catholic blogosphere you will find Catholics defending the Holy Father's remarks regarding condoms and HIV/AIDS. It is rightly pointed out that the Holy Father reiterated his position, stated on the plane on the way to Cameroon, that "we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms". He also said that "the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality", that the condom "is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection", and that the Church does not regard the use of condoms as "a real or moral solution"
However, he also said that the use of a condom by a male prostitute may be "a first step in the direction of a moralisation" and that in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, there may be "a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality."
There have indeed been some silly headlines and interpretations in the media but there have also been plenty of reports that have accurately made the distinction between the contraceptive use of condoms and the remarks of the Holy Father concerning the use of condoms as a prophylactic against HIV/AIDS. So I don't think this is really a story about media misrepresentation but about the essential point that the Holy Father was making in his interview with a journalist. To that extent, I agree with some of what Damian Thompson says in his post: Conservative Catholics blame media for condoms story – but are they secretly cross with the Pope?.
(Incidentally, some have raised the question of context - you can see the whole context here in the complete extract from the book "Light of the World". If you are suspicious about the translation, you can check the German text at Sandro Magister's Chiesa blog: The Pope on the Pope. A Preview.)
In my previous post, I put forward the case that we are allowed to disagree with the Pope here. Fr John Boyle has done so with great respect but also with courage and honesty in his post: Did the Pope say it's okay to use condoms?. Having pondered this question for more or less the whole of the last two days, I have to say that I am largely in agreement with Fr Boyle. Before I comment on that further with my own thoughts, I think we need to look at some of the background in another post.
5 comments:
It could be useful to look at the issue in terms of "marginal contribution to sinfulness".
In the case of marital sexual relations, the contribution of the use of a condom to sinfulness is 100%, since it turns an otherwise good act into a sin.
Consider now an act of adultery or fornication, which is a grave sin in itself. In my view, such an act does not become substantially more sinful if a condom is used. In economics' terms, the marginal contribution to sinfulness of the use of condoms in an already illicit sexual relation is not significant.
Although strongly agreeing with Fr John also ; I find his 'disagreement' with His Holiness somewhat amphibolic and specious.
Fr John's seeing this condom use as not aggravating an already gravely immoral situation - therefore merely a prevention of further disorder ; bearing no laudible credit whatsoever...a neutralising of aggravation is not direct moral agency - like kicking a cat into the road but waiting till the bus passes rather than kicking it under it.
But Fr John's failing to see that this is an extraordinary act - not a normative compliance with the act itself - it requires an act of contrariety to potential effects - therefore it does contain worth as a morally ordering agent.
There may not be a difference between a glass half-empty and a glass half full : But there is a very distinct moral difference between a glass half-emptied and a glass half-filled.
This may seem like hair-splitting; but that's what ethics is all about...Moral theology is a minefield of homo[i]ousios scenarios.
This problem arises by considering action and inaction morally neutral by default - it isn't; a human being is graced by their very existence and nature scarred by original sin - nothing is inherently morally neutral; but morally ambivalent - the condom use does not merely NOT tip the balance into further moral disorder; it tips it the other way albeit the minutest fraction - Therefore His Holiness is correct in his assessment of it being a movement towards...
The florid extrapolation by His Holiness is exactly that with which we can disagree - but he was trying to intensify a pastoral point in Charity [which is always 'ready to excuse' [1 Cor 13] and 'goes beyond all demands for justice' [Pius XI, QA]]
agree:It could be useful to look at the issue in terms of "marginal contribution to sinfulness".
Dear Father, thanks for your series of posts on this. In my view it is helpful to consider the Pope's comments in light of the three traditional sources of morality: object, intetntion and circumstances. I posted on this here: http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2010/11/sources-of-morality.html
Ah good! That is an excellent article with a very helpful analysis. I was just reading Noldin and Davis the other day on exactly this and was reminded of a Latin tag that I had forgotten: Bonum ex integra causa malum ex quocumque defectu which is usually translated in English as "An action is good when good in every respect; it is wrong when wrong in any respect"
Post a Comment