He puts forward the argument that it is not condoms themselves that are intrinsically evil but contraception, and that therefore the use of condoms as a prophylactic against HIV/AIDs can be justified. As he rightly points out, this has been an argument proposed for some time by some Catholic moral theologians. (I am not sure that is can be rightly described as the "consensus".) Back in 2004, Austen Ivereigh commissioned Fr Martin Rhonheimer, a priest of Opus Dei (and by that very fact trusted by many orthodox Catholics) to write an article for the Tablet in which he argued that the use of condoms by people with HIV/AIDS would help them to keep a sense of responsibility and that the use of condoms by a man with HIV when he has intercourse with his wife may be permissible since the contraceptive effect would be an unintended side-effect. I presume that the argumentation of this article and that of similar moral theologians underpinned Jack Valero's comments on television at the time of the Papal Visit that "the Church is not against condoms" in the sense that the Church does not oppose condoms per se but promiscuity and contraception.
Luke Gormally replied to Fr Ronheimer's argument concerning the use of condoms in marriage where the husband is HIV positive in Faith Magazine: Marriage and the Prophylactic use of Condoms
Austen Ivereigh remarks that he had to deal with the "fallout" from Cardinal Lopez Trujillo's remarks on the BBC Panorama programme to the effect that condoms were ineffective in Africa. In fact, as we know, on a national scale, this is true. Those countries which have strongly promoted condom use have experienced a higher rate of HIV infection whereas those who have promoted changed in behaviour have significantly reduced rates of infection. It should also be noted that the BBC programme "Sex and the Holy City" was one of the most notoriously biased programmes made by the BBC and was the subject of a chapter in Robin Aiken's book Can We Trust the BBC? which was supported by the scholarly critique by David Kerr. (Both Kerr and Aiken were long-time BBC employees.)
Some Cardinals, though accepting the large-scale picture, were concerned with the casuistry of individual cases and the public perception of the Church as inhumane and heartless. Austen Ivereigh lists among these, Cardinals Murphy-O'Connor, Danneels, and Barragan; and notes that other Cardinals (presumably including Cardinal Trujillo) disagreed. This disagreement was in 2005-2006; a commission of moral theologians was set up to look into the question but nothing was decided. In 2008, Austen Ivereigh spoke to a "senior official" at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who told him that he agreed with "clarifying" the teaching but that they feared the headlines that would result.
In other words, the story is one of division within the ranks of officials at the Holy See with factions both for and against a "clarification" that condoms could be morally permissible as a prophylactic against HIV infection. It could reasonably be assumed, I think, that the current direction of L'Osservatore Romano would be on the side of the clarifying faction and this helps to explain why the paper broke the embargo of the Holy Father's interview, publishing various extracts including his comments on condoms and HIV, thus ensuring that this would be the principal story in the world's media.
For the sake of further "clarity", let me say that the opposing faction would not necessarily have disagreed that in theory, in an individual case, the use of a condom by a homosexual man in order to reduce the risk of HIV infection would not ipso facto contradict the teaching of Humanae Vitae which was concerned with contraception. They would have been concerned that any signal to the effect that condoms were the answer to HIV/AIDS would exacerbate the problem in Africa and elsewhere - a claim that all parties accepted was "backed up by the evidence."
8 comments:
Thanks Father. This is one of the best commentaries I have seen so far. It provides the needed context behind the controversy. Ultimately, this appears to be something of an "open question" where theologians can express their own point of view(including the Pope) but without violating the principles in Humanae Vitae.
Thank you for your analysis Father.
Just to check I looked at the Tablet site. It now has a blog of its own. Imitation may be, Father, a form of flattery.
Well done!
He puts forward the argument that it is not condoms themselves that are intrinsically evil but contraception, and that therefore the use of condoms as a prophylactic against HIV/AIDs can be justified.
The trouble with this argument is that a condom is always a contraceptive. It's not like a knife that can be used to prepare a meal, but also to kill your spouse - in this example, it is the intention that matters, or what you use the instrument for. A condom prevents conception, albeit in a way that can also prevent (but not always) disease, unlike the pill. If it doesn't prevent conception, it isn't providing a barrier to disease either.
The example of the male prostitute is really extraordinary - an individual who clearly doesn't pay any attention to Catholic teaching, but may ask about whether he should a condom? I'm baffled by this argument.
Hopefully with the reaction these comments have generated, the party pushing for a clarification (i.e. further compromising the existing position) will be put in its place.
I'm not sure I can follow. Now, I am no moral theologian, but here is how I understand it:
1) What makes an act intrinsically evil is the finis operis, not the finis operantis.
2) The finis operis of the sexual act intra naturam using contracaptives is the exclusion of conception.
3) The sexual act intra naturam using contracaptives is intrinsically evil. (That contraceptives have no bearing on the moral nature of the sexual act contra naturam is quite obvious to me, since there cannot be any conception anyway.)
4) If an act is intrinsically evil, the voluntarium in causa is inapplicable.
Thus, to me it is rather obvious that the use of a condom in sexual realtions intra naturam is never licit. But obviously I must be overlooking something, if all these learned theologians are thinking otherwise.
Excellently objective analysis so far Father; but I feel your impartiality could lead to some misguided inferences:
a] Rhonheimer's argument is a theoretical one grounded upon a delusory absolute prophylaxis - a 100% safe condom - something which does not exist. Therefore the very spirit of its publication is inherently duplicitous, verging upon mendacity.
b] Austen Ivereigh went beyond the theoretical sphere to one of practical application - advocating the use of condoms for hiv serodiscordant married couples. Not only did he do this he also cited a case study of a hundred couples in which one spouse actually seroconverted and became hiv+
[bear in mind that seroconversion is a 1000 to 1 chance for a woman who comes into contact with the virus - thus statistically there were many more occasions among the hundred couples where the 'correctly used condom' failed and infection did not lead to seroconversion]
Even with this scientific data; and in defiant light of it - Ivereigh still continued to advocate condom use [one must infer that a 1% chance over a year is a risk which Ivereigh opines may be dismissed]
This goes beyond a question of using theoretical valid prophylaxis and humanae vitae's/Gormally's necessity of an 'openness to life' within human lovemaking - this is the promotion of an activity which risks the health and even the life of a spouse - this 'risk low enough to accept' attitude wilfully contravenes the fifth commandment!
Those among our Catholic commentators/journalists/bloggers/clergy/professional laity who have 'come out' over the past 48hrs ; siding with the Ivereigh/Valero paradigm are promoting something which does not require clarification from Rome
[something which Rhonheimer may require - on a theoretical level]
...because this position of 'acceptable risk limitation' is untenable within the intrinsic moral fabric of the Gospel of Life.
###################################
Luke Gormally's article is a wonder to behold; but he inadvertently oversteps the boundary in one regard by arguing without qualification:
The use of a condom to assist fertility [where a woman's vagina is too acidic and destroys sperm] Ever since the time of Pius XII's allocutios, assisted fertility - medically 'pushing' sperm with low motility after lovemaking has been permissible.
Consequently ejaculating into a condom during lovemaking after which the sperm is transferred past the dangerous region - is conducive to humanae vitae - but not Luke Gormally's unqualified argument against Rhonheimer.
Division at the Vatican. Surely not the same Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor who did nothing effective to prevent referrals for abortion from within the Hospital of St John & St Elizabeth ably assisted by one Austen Ivereigh? The same Cardinal that subsequently welcomed a Code of Ethics where the prohibition against referrals for abortion had been removed? And have we not read something about Daneels and a dirty little book which in the view of at least one priest promotes paedophilia? Smoke in the Vatican? I am not sure it is right to lump Barragan in with this pair.
Nicolas Bellord
I don't even care anymore. Let's all just be good Catholics and follow the Church teaching. If you're not married, no worries. If you're married, and one spouse is infected, abstain. If you're living an unchaste lifestyle, then get out of it. There. Simple. No need for clarifications.
The journalist who interviewed the Holy Father ( and I paraphrase here so do tell me if I am wrong) asked the question, 'could there ever be a situation in which the use of condoms would be positive?'The Pope replied that in the case of a male prostitute, him choosing to use a condom to prevent a disease being passed on, would signify a glimmer of morality in that person which in an otherwise immoral existence could be seen as positive. However, for the press to pick up on this fragment and call it a turnaround in Catholic teaching would surely be as misleading as claiming that the Vatican was changing it's views on prostitution.
Post a Comment