« Opie - Laughing all the way to the bank? | Main | What Are My Qualifications? »
May 02, 2006
Condoms & HIV/AIDS
(Jimmy Akin)
I've gotten a bunch of e-mails about the stories circulating in the Catholic press that the Holy See may be issuing a document dealing with the topic of condoms and the transmission of HIV/AIDS.
From what I can tell, the known facts seem to be these:
1) Pope Benedict asked one of the Vatican dicasteries (the Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care) to prepare such a document (after some cardinals started making remarks in the press that sounded favorable toward using condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS, thus creating a public issue that needs clarification).
2) The document is presently in the consultation stage (word is that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is now looking at it).
3) When the consultation is finished, the document will be forwarded to B16 for him to decide what (if anything) to do with it. So NONE of this is a done deal at this point.
Now, let's go deeper: John Allen says (EXCERPTS),
Sources told NCR this week that a draft study currently being prepared by the Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care would provisionally accept the use of condoms in the narrow context of a married couple, where one partner is infected with HIV/AIDS and the other is not, as a means to prevent transmission of the disease.
Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragàn, President of the Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care, confirmed in an April 23 interview with the Roman newspaper La Repubblica that his office was asked by Pope Benedict XVI to look into the subject.
Speaking on background, an official in Lozano Barragàn's office later told NCR that the draft takes a favorable position on the use of condoms to halt the spread of the disease "inside marriage and the family, not outside of it."
GET THAT STORY. (CLINICAL LANGUAGE WARNING)
Allen does a pretty good job explaining the moral dimensions of what the document might say, but let's get into the moral issue involved and try to envision what the document might say if it comes out along the lines that Allen indicates are currently being discussed.
This matter is sensitive enough, though, that I'll put the substantive discussion of it below the fold for the sake of decorum.
(CLINICAL LANGUAGE WARNING BELOW.)
Let's start with the basics: Sex has both a unitive and a procreative aspect and the effects of condom use on both of these need to be examined.
First, let's consider the effects of condom use on the procreative aspect of sex: Would it be immoral to use a condom on the grounds that it blocks the procreative dimension of sex?
The natural impulse of many of us (myself included) would be to say yes. Procreation cannot be interfered with, and so it would be immoral to use a condom to prevent the transmission of HIV due to the fact that it renders the act infertile.
But wait a moment. The law of double effect may apply here.
Suppose a married couple that otherwise accepts and intends to implement the Church's teaching on human sexuality has one partner who is infected with HIV and they want to know whether they can use a condom to engage in sexual intercourse with a reduced risk of HIV transmission.
If they asked me about the advisability of this, the very first thing I would tell them is that condoms aren't foolproof and don't always stop the virus. The risk of transmission is too great, in my opinion, and they should refrain from having sex at all on grounds of prudence. If you really love your spouse, you won't want them to take the risk of contracting HIV from you.
But suppose that they are willing to set this issue aside and want to know about the intrinsic moral structure of the act--not its prudential evaluation: Could they use the condom if conditions of prudence are set aside?
What they would be doing, in this case, is to use a piece of plastic to stop the virus from passing from one partner to the other.
Is using a piece of plastic to stop a virus from jumping from one person to another an okay thing in principle?
Sure it is. That's why doctors and nurses and dentists and dental technicians wear gloves when they're doing examinations that could bring them into contact with bodily fluids. Stopping the transmission of HIV by using pieces of plastic is well established.
But how does that square with the procreative aspect of sex? Would a couple using a condom to stop HIV be using the fact that the condom also stops sperm either as a means or as an end?
If the couple is a good Catholic couple that wants to keep the sex act open to life then it would seem that the blockage of sperm along with the virus may be neither a means nor an end.
It's not an end (a goal) because if one partner didn't have HIV then they wouldn't be using the condom. The sperm isn't what they want to stop. They're not trying to stop the sperm--that's not their goal--they're trying to stop the virus. Stopping the virus is the end they are pursuing by using the piece of plastic.
It also may not be a means because the couple may not be stopping the sperm in order to stop the virus.
The question here hinges on whether certain spermatazoa are themselves infected with HIV and can infect the partner or whether the HIV is free-floating in the semen.
Assume, for the moment, that it's the latter. In this case the stopping of the sperm would not be a means to the end of stopping the virus. It would simply be a side effect, and if it's only a side effect then it's potentially morally justifiable on the principle of double-effect.
But what if the virus is currently embedded in the spermatazoa themselves? In that case stopping the spermatozoa might be considered a means to stopping the virus, but it might (notice I said might) be justifiable on self-defense grounds.
Consider an example: Suppose that a person who otherwise has a right to come into my home (let's say it's my college roommate, who co-pays the rent) has become a suicide bomber and has swallowed a bomb that will go off once he enters our dorm room. Stopping him from coming in may be the only way to stop the bomb from coming in and detonating. In the same way, stopping a particular spermatozoon that has become infected with HIV might be justifiable on self-defense grounds.
(It certainly would be if someone were trying to introduce an HIV-infected spermatozoon into your body through something other than sex, you could clearly stop such a spermatozoon on self-defense grounds.)
So it seems to me that there may be a double-effect argument (possibly in combination with a self-defense argument) that could apply here.
All of this deals only with the procreative aspect of the sexual act, though. None of it deals with the unitive aspect, and we have to consider that because the unitive aspect of the sexual act is also an essential element of it.
To my mind, the unitive aspect of sex is not just the sense of emotional closeness or shared sexual sensations that the spouses get from the act. They could get such things through mutual masturbation. In order for the unitive aspect of the act to exist, the relevant bits of their anatomy must be united in a specific way.
That doesn't happen if you put a piece of plastic between them.
What happens in that case is the two people are really uniting themselves to a piece of plastic and not to each other. They are then manipulating the piece of plastic in a way that brings about sexual pleasure and release, which thus appears to turn the conjugal act into an act of mutual masturbation with a piece of plastic in the middle and not a unitive sexual act of husband and wife.
So it seems to me that, regardless of whether double-effect (and self-defense) could make the loss of the procreative aspect of the act tolerable, the destruction of the unitive aspect is something that cannot be gotten around.
The act of using a condom to prevent the transmission of AIDS in a sexual act will still be immoral.
But is it, as some cardinals have suggested, a "lesser evil"?
The question at this point would be "Is it a lesser evil to mutually masturbate with your spouse than it is to have sex with your spouse in a way that is likely to kill?"
It's always hard to compare the gravity of one mortal sin versus another, but it seems to me that the answer to that question is likely to be "Yes, it is less evil to mutually masturbate with your spouse than to have sex in a way that will likely kill your spouse."
You'd still be committing a mortal sin either way, but it seems to me that the Holy See could judge that it is a lesser mortal sin to do mutual masturbation via a condom than to kill your spouse via HIV infection.
I don't know for sure whether the Vatican document that is under consideration is focused narrowly on the situation of husbands and wives using condoms to prevent HIV transmission or whether it is broader than that, but the "lesser evil" principle would seem to have a broader application than just to husbands and wives.
Consider this:
Homosexuals are already performing sexual acts that are non-procreative (because you need both sexes to have a kid) and non-unitive (because members of the same sex don't have the relevant bits of anatomy to unite), so a homosexual who committed a condomistic sex act would need to go to confession and say, "I had homosexual sex," but it doesn't seem that he would be obliged to add " . . . and I also rendered it non-procreative and non-unitive by using a condom."
If that's the case then the lesser evil principle might apply here, too, and the question would be: Which is worse? Committing homosexual sex in a way that has a higher or a lower chance of killing the other person?
The answer would seem to be the latter. They're both mortal sins, but the former seems to be a worse mortal sin than the latter. (In fact, if someone is HIV-infected and has homosexual sex then it seems to me that he would be obliged to say "I had homosexual sex AND I did so knowing that I have HIV and was putting the other person's life at risk.")
If the Holy See comes to conclusions on these matters, it would then have the question of whether to announce them publicly.
That's a prudential question that has to take into account the effect of media distortion on such matters and whether speaking the truth about the subject on such a high-profile level would do more harm than good.
In principle, I don't have a problem with the Church announcing the truth about any moral question--answering moral questions is essential to the work of the Church, and it cannot duck them just because they're delicate or controversial. But there is still a real question about the way in which the Church should announce the truth: Should it come through an official announcement of a Vatican dicastery, with the pope's blessing and thus authority behind it, or should it come more informally and non-magisterially, through a developing consensus of moral theologians?
That's a question for B16 to answer.
It's why they pay him the big bucks.
Keep him in your prayers on this one, won't you?
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Moral Theology | Permalink
Comments
You make good points, Jimmy, but in the end, I think we should call people to choose the GOOD, not the lesser of two evils.
Posted by: Laura | May 2, 2006 9:20:16 AM
One of the reasons I love Jimmy's blog is that I occasionally get to see new words like "condomistic" coined in print.
I could just see the Pope allowing for condom use in this narrow context (the lesser of two evils - you may stop at the Sixth Circle of Hell) and having the press go mad with headlines like "Vatican Admits Error In Opposing Condoms!!".
Posted by: Tim J. | May 2, 2006 9:38:51 AM
"condomized sex" and "condomistic sex" are both commonplace phrases now...
Posted by: AmericanPapist | May 2, 2006 9:47:05 AM
I question whether the impedence of a desired good is necessarily sinful. I think the ideal of abstinence in such a case is good.
Comparatively, the act of sex after sterilization - whether sterilization was necessary or not adds a few moral dimensions, but is not needed for the comparison - is generally considered okay, but couples are cautioned against lust. Some go so far as to caution couples not to abstain lest they harm the unitive aspect of the sexual act. Sterilization would seem to me to be a greater impediment than a condom.
Maybe Jimmy or someone else could address the patoral advice given to a couple where one is sterilized versus a couple where one has a communicable and fatal disease.
Posted by: M.Z. Forrest | May 2, 2006 9:56:24 AM
I see a slipperly slope forming. Next it'll be okay to contracept in order to avoid herpes, etc. . .
Posted by: | May 2, 2006 10:01:47 AM
Couple of quick points here:
Remember when the media told everyone that the "Vatican," even the "Pope" himself, had come to a favorable opinion of Harry Potter? Turns out it was ONE GUY with no authority to speak for the Pope or Vatican. Point is, we need to tread lightly here to keep from confusing those who'll never read the actually words of the Magisterium, but only the quotes and paraphrases and misquotes in the mainstream media.
Two: as has been pointed out, a lesser evil is still evil. To approve condom use would be akin to saying, "Well, Father, I killed her soul but not her body." (That's IF the condom doesn't fail. HIV is about one micron in size while latex has naturally occurring holes 100 microns in size.)
Related to this last bit is this:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20031201_family-values-safe-sex-trujillo_en.html#HIVincrease
I don't see any need for the Vatican to clarify at all beyond what it has already stated in this document as a whole and this section in particular.
Posted by: Jared | May 2, 2006 10:12:55 AM
Paul VI: 15. "On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)"
No.19 refers to Pius XII with a possible reference to 'perforated condoms' I seem to recall.
However in paragraph 14 he seems to rule out lesser/greater evil arguments:
“Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)
Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong. “
Perhaps the key issue is whether it is this condomistic sex is ‘deliberately contraceptive’?
Posted by: Pseudomodo | May 2, 2006 10:45:44 AM
""condomized sex" and "condomistic sex" are both commonplace phrases now..."
I guess I just don't get out that much.
Posted by: Tim J. | May 2, 2006 11:00:48 AM
Nothing says I love you like a 99% chance I won't give you AIDS.
Posted by: BillyHW | May 2, 2006 11:07:59 AM
I think that Pope Pius XI’s statement as to contraception is interesting:
“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.…”
Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii,
Posted by: BC | May 2, 2006 11:11:47 AM
Great post, Jimmy--I've been waiting for this one, and you never disappoint. A couple of thoughts about it:
1) To illustrate the possible double-effect argument, you could use the following example. Suppose I were sitting in a field on a pile of hay. I look up and see a woman who has fallen from an airplane headed straight for my pile of hay, which will no doubt save her from a high-impact sudden death. At the same time, however, I see an incoming missile (aimed at me because I am a CIA operative on a delicate mission--or something). I whip out my NASA-designed shield-o-matic and generate a force-field around myself: on the one hand, the unfortunate woman bounces off and is damaged or killed; on the other hand, the missile does not kill me (or foil my supremely important government mission).
OK, it's far-fetched--but it's fun!
2) I wonder if your anti-condom argument hinges precisely on the "unitive aspect" of the marital act. That is to say, I agree whole-heartedly that using a condom vaporizes the unitive aspect and for precisely the reasons you put forward, but I wonder if the principle involved is wider than that.
For example, one might well set about to prove that the three angles of an equilateral triangle add up to 180 degrees, but you'd be a little off-target because in fact the angles of ANY triangle add up to 180 degrees. I wonder if arguing from the unitive aspect of the marital act in this case isn't something like that.
As you described, couples using a condom simply aren't performing the act. They're doing something else, and the fact that it looks almost just like the real thing is incidental. Phrases like "the integrity of the act" come to mind.
I'm groping a bit here, but maybe this will bring out what I'm trying to get on the table. It seems possible to sin by violating the unitive aspect of the act without violating the physical integrity of the act. It seems that one could have the physical integrity of the act without the unitive aspect, but not the unitive aspect without the physical integrity.
Does this make sense? What do you think?
Posted by: Jeremy | May 2, 2006 11:13:04 AM
Cardinal Barragàn and Martini have put a tremendous number of souls in jeopardy with their Satan-inspired words and ought to be punished severely for their crimes.
And whoever appointed them was a catastrophic fool.
Posted by: BillyHW | May 2, 2006 11:17:37 AM
Has anyone thought of the children who might be born with AIDS when the condom fails?
Nothing says fatherhood (or motherhood) like a 50% chance I won't give my child AIDS.
Posted by: BillyHW | May 2, 2006 11:25:13 AM
But it is still mortal sin, and mortal sin separates us from God.
Posted by: Rick | May 2, 2006 11:30:04 AM
That's ridiculous. First of all, HIV is not a death sentence anymore. Medicine now allows for near-remission and comparable lifespans for those infected with HIV and AIDS. Secondly, the one and only option should the latter not be the case, is abstinence. Is it easy? Of course not. Is it the only morally correct avenue? Always has and always will be.
Posted by: John | May 2, 2006 11:32:26 AM
And yet BillyHW, it is perfectly ordered to have condomless sex with an HIV infected spouse. In fact you are engaged in a holy enterprise if you are then blessed with a child who will be an orphan by their 12th birthday.
Posted by: M.Z. Forrest | May 2, 2006 11:32:50 AM
Suppose there were a medicine that eliminated the risk of HIV transmission but rendered the person sterile. There would be no problem with intercourse under those circumstances.
Suppose a 100% sterile couple chose to use condoms to eliminate the risk of HIV transmission. Here the use of a condom would not be contraceptive but it still would be wrong for precisely the reasons Jimmy gives. A natural act of intercourse must result in ejaculation in the vagina and not in a latex sheath. The exchange of body fluids is intrinsic to intercourse.
Posted by: Charles R. Williams | May 2, 2006 11:40:57 AM
M.Z. Forrest never fails to impress with his ability to turn lead into gold.
A true act of love can never allow that the object and fruit of one's love contract a deadly disease. And a marital act without love is what I would call perfectly disordered.
Posted by: BillyHW | May 2, 2006 11:41:00 AM
Consider this:
1. Condoms have a demonstrated pregnancy rate. (WHO)
2. A woman can only bcome pregnant close to her ovulation day. (Billings Ovulation method)
3. Condom failure on days outside her fertility time will not result in a pregnancy. (Billings)
4. It will however result in an infection rate 4-5 times that of the pregnancy rate. In other words encouraging condom use will result in more infection not less.
Posted by: Pseudomodo | May 2, 2006 11:41:08 AM
M.Z., no. If one spouse has HIV then the call to living chastely is very clear. The choice isn't "use condoms" or "don't use condoms." The choice is "sin" or "don't sin." I know what I would choose.
Posted by: eweu | May 2, 2006 11:45:12 AM
I have a few questions and thoughts:
--Why is it so desirous that a couple in which one spouse has AIDs be permitted to engage in the marital act, that Catholic morality must be bent? That gift seems to have been abbrogated by one spouse becoming infected w/AIDs/HIV, whether by his own sin or a medical accident/error. It is a cross for the couple to bear, a hard one, but one they must bear.
--This sexual intimacy as JK notes is not unitive since separated by plastic/latex. I don't see how we can overlook that it can never be reproductive. So, what's the point of permitting such sexual acts?
--Why is the case of a woman who would certainly die (or be in grave health) if she tried to carry a child to birth? Why can't we allow this couple to enjoy the marital act using condoms? [yeah, I know condoms don't guarantee no pregnancy, as discussed above.] If we're talking about preventing the death of one spouse in the case of AIDs/HIV, why can't we consider this case as well? Why doesn't the couple with the woman who cannot carry a child get a break?
Thanks.
Posted by: Peggy | May 2, 2006 12:05:42 PM
This entire discussion is stupid. John Allen has never, to my knowledge, gotten his facts straight on any issue, especially one with theological implications. Moreover, if any of you went to Catholic New Agency in the last couple of weeks, to say nothing of American Papist, you would have seen numerous posts to the contrary, in the words of Vatican officials from the dicasteries of Human Health and the CDF, who adamantly denied that any change in the attitude toward condoms was in the offing. I'm afraid that citing John Allen is far from convincing.
Posted by: Janice | May 2, 2006 12:06:40 PM
"In fact you are engaged in a holy enterprise if you are then blessed with a child who will be an orphan by their 12th birthday.".
The child is not the problem in this scenario, AIDS is.
Having a child with your spouse is perfectly ordered. It is NOT perfectly ordered to intentionally contract a deadly disease, or to allow it to be passed on to your child.
Condom or not, knowingly having sex with someone who has AIDS is almost the definition of insanity. Once HIV enters the picture, I doubt it's much good to pretend that (thanks to latex!) we can now have a nice, normal married life anyway.
If I had AIDS, I can't imagine ALLOWING anyone to have sex with me. I see no other charitable option.
But sex is the Ultimate Value in the secular West, so I guess it would be better to throw myself off a cliff than to exercise a little restraint. I mean, life is meaningless if you can't have sex, isn't it?
Posted by: Tim J. | May 2, 2006 12:07:37 PM
Wouldn't it be loosely similar to one spouse having a different illness that physically prevented them from having sex? No one would expect the ill spouse to have to carry out the spousal act of sex. That would be a cross that they would have to carry together. If one spouse is ill and shouldn't have sex, then both spouses should use it as an oppurtunity to grow together in different ways.
Posted by: Julie | May 2, 2006 12:31:01 PM
It seems using a comdom by eliminating the unitive dimension of sex a married couple using a condom would always be immoral so all discussion of other aspects of the situation is pointless. The one issue that is interesting is the idea that using a comdom in an act of sodomy would perhaps be less grave than commiting such an act without a condom, especially if one "partner" knows he has HIV. Both acts would be mortal sins, but one still less grave than the other. It sounds like a slippery slope, but the idea itself seems to work, and to be something worth teaching.
Posted by: J.R. Stoodley | May 2, 2006 12:43:08 PM
I forgot to post this:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6558
As I started to say (and failed to complete that thought before foolishly moving to the next), certain media groups even have this preliminary story wrong. The policy ain't gonna change. It wasn't ever in danger of change.
Posted by: Jared | May 2, 2006 12:48:23 PM
Incidentally, mostly for my curiosity as a new Catholic...
Is mutual masturbation before marriage considered a lesser sin than fully-unitive, fully-procreative sex prior to marriage?
If so, does that mean that a couple having sex without a condom prior to marriage is committing a greater sin than a couple having sex with a condom prior to marriage?
Posted by: Jeremy | May 2, 2006 12:52:55 PM
"Is mutual masturbation before marriage considered a lesser sin than fully-unitive, fully-procreative sex prior to marriage?"
Arguably, the first is a kind of sodomy,(right sex, wrong "receptacle") while the second is simple fornication and less objectively grve.
"If so, does that mean that a couple having sex without a condom prior to marriage is committing a greater sin than a couple having sex with a condom prior to marriage?"
Though it runs counter to our sex-ed indoctrination, condomized sex can be considered sodomitical under certain kinds of casuistry, and therefore is more disordered. Here's a summary of Aquinas:
St. Thomas thus points out that while even simple fornication is “against properly human nature, of which the act of generation is ordered to the appropriate education of children,” sodomy is “against the nature of every animal” because it is not aimed at generation at all.
Posted by: Kevin Jones | May 2, 2006 2:26:53 PM
Jeremy
Since they are both mortal sins I suppose you can look at it through this analogy. in one instance you are hit by a brick which fell from the Empire State Building and die instantly. In the second instance the entire building falls on you destroying your body to the point that it cant be identified. I suppose that you could say one was worse than the other but in the end in both cases your still just as dead. If you have sex before marriage with or without a condom with full knowledge and consent then your soul is just as dead either way and confession is needed.
Note: I am using you in an generic sense not refering to anyone in particular. I invite any correction if I have miss stated.
Posted by: Jared Groth | May 2, 2006 2:49:02 PM
sodomy is “against the nature of every animal” because it is not aimed at generation at all.
Its a bit off topic, but just a little advice for everyone. Don't use the argument that sodomy is unnatural on a simple biological level around those who want to argue that it is natural. They will likely point out that many animals (bonobos, fruit bats, and orcas are the examples I know of but I think there are others) engage in the same activity. And monkeys mastrobate, apparently. If they bring the subject up themselves, I would point out that just because one species does something it does not mean others should. When a lion cub dies its mother often eats it, recovering some of the energy she had put into generating it. This is fine for lions to do, but who would suggest human mothers do the same?
Posted by: J.R. Stoodley | May 2, 2006 3:10:10 PM
J.R.
That's the argument I always use. Just because Chimps are promiscuous does'nt mean we should be. After all it was discovered not too long ago (by Jane Goodall, the scientist who never bothered to ask the locals what they saw chimps doing) that chimps sometimes attack, kill and eat other chimps. Shades of Soylent GREEN!!
(BTW did Tom ever chow down on his wifes placenta or was he just pulling our legs and nibbling on them a bit?)
Posted by: Pseudomodo | May 2, 2006 3:45:57 PM
"In other words encouraging condom use will result in more infection not less."
This is exactly what has happened in Africa. God have mercy on us for it!
Posted by: Laura | May 2, 2006 4:31:32 PM
Mr. Akin,
With all due respect, your post sounds as though you are already bracing for the Holy Father to announce that condoms are going to be allowed and the above is merely an apologetical deflection of such.
The principle of double effect does NOT apply because one of the key components of that principle is the fact that the evil effect cannot be an INTRINSIC EVIL.
Deliberately preventing the husband's sperm from entering the woman's birth canal IS an intrinsic evil, rendering the rest of the test irrelevant.
The "intent" reasoning was the same thing that the married couple on Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae commission tried to advance to allow the "principle of totality."
Christ said the gates of Hell WILL NOT prevail against the Church.
Were any approval of contraceptive use for any purpose whatsoever to go through, the gates of Hell WOULD prevail. I think we should pray that the Holy Spirit leads the Holy Father to censure these dissident cardinals from misleading the faithful and transcribes a document restating an already obvious conclusion settled long ago (i.e., in 1968).
Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2006 5:32:12 PM
Anonymous-
In case you didn't read Jimmy's entire post, he concluded;
"So it seems to me that, regardless of whether double-effect (and self-defense) could make the loss of the procreative aspect of the act tolerable, the destruction of the unitive aspect is something that cannot be gotten around.
The act of using a condom to prevent the transmission of AIDS in a sexual act will still be immoral."
Did you miss that?
Posted by: Tim J. | May 2, 2006 6:22:59 PM
Jimmy, I wrote the following in thread on forums.catholic.com. I would appreciate your input (and other readers' too), perhaps in another blog entry, on this scenario I'm proposing:
That being said, there is another situation which the upcoming document / statement from the Vatican might address. WARNING: The following moral-theological speculation is entirely my own, and my conclusions may not prove to be entirely compatible with Catholic teaching.
Suppose Joe and Jane are a married couple in a 3rd world country where women have limited rights and limited or no recourse against unjust actions performed by their husbands. Suppose Jane is a faithful Catholic (or Christian who shares the Catholic sexual sensibilities), and wishes to have nothing to do with artificial contraception; and perhaps she has already born three children by Joe. Now Suppose Joe is off working for twelve weeks at a time in the mines several hours driving distant from his home. While living away from home he contracts HIV, say from a prostitute or from "shooting up" with an infected needle. At some point he discovers he is infected or almost certainly infected, and he informs Jane, or she becomes very much aware of it; by the grace of God she has not yet herself become infected through sexual intercourse with her husband.
This next part may be hard for us to imagine (or maybe not for some of us), but let's assume now that Joe is *not* a just and selfless man, and that he insists, even demands to still have sexual relations (vaginal copulation) with Jane; and that even if she doesn't willingly comply, he will have them with her anyway ...
I have been thinking and thinking about this, and I believe it would be entirely compatible with Catholic moral principles in this case for Jane not only to consent to having sex with Joe while he's wearing a condom, but that it would be morally right for her to request for Joe to wear a condom, even to insist he wear one, even for her to procure those condoms. Why would it be okay? Self-defense, plain and simple. And if she dies in the next few years, as her husband almost surely will, who will take care of their young children? The sexual relations are truly or practically inevitable in this scenario (albeit agains the wife's preferences and moral inclinations), and so the principle of double effect can be invoked, and she can protect herself and the welfare of her children, even by actively procuring and insisting upon the use of a condom.
There is something I wanted to add:
Perhaps it will one day be possible to manufacture a condom that will allow for sperm to pass through unharmed while at the same time preventing the HIV virus from doing so or killing / neutralizing it in the process. Or perhaps some cream could be manufactured that could be applied inside the wife's organ which would produce the same effect -- survival of the sperm, defeat of the virus. At least we can pray for this, perhaps even fund such development.
Posted by: whosebob | May 2, 2006 7:14:14 PM
Sterilization would seem to me to be a greater impediment than a condom.
Sterilization is a one-time act that can be repented of.
Whacking your kid around because you enjoy it is a lesser evil than killing him. But if you have killed your child, and repented of it, the question is what to do with yourself after the repentence. Perhaps your child was handicapped and you killed him because after the prenatal diagnosis, you thought you didn't want to spend the time it would take to take care of him. That you repented doesn't mean that you don't have the time on your hands that could have been spent caring for him. But the question for the whacking the kid around is: when are you going to stop? All other questions get deferred until then.
An on-going sin may be more of a problem than a graver one-time deal.
Posted by: Mary | May 2, 2006 7:24:06 PM
There is something I should have made more clear in my previous comment:
In the thread in which I originally posted my thoughts (re-posted above), the scenario where the wife cannot choose to not have sexual relations with her HIV-infected husband was proposed in stark contrast to a married couple in which both spouses are conscientous Catholics / Christians who are dedicated to living out the true meaning of human sexuality in accord with God's design. As you'll see if you read my posts in that thread, I argued that in the latter case there can be no moral justification for the couple to use condoms, and for the same reaons Jimmy gave regarding the impediment to the spouses full union in the marital act.
Posted by: whosebob | May 2, 2006 7:29:14 PM
whosebob,
It is my understanding that one may never do anything that is intrinsically evil. Evidently killing another person is not intrinsically evil. Murder is, but killing an enemy in war or in self-defence or a government killing a criminal can be ok if the other conditions for a moral action are in place.
Something like sodomy however, which is intrinsically evil, may never be done even to save one's own life or any other noble purpose.
If contraception is indeed an intrinsically evil action (and I don't know if the Magesterium has defined that or not) then it may not be done in any case, including in pure self-defense. We may not do evil so that good may come of it.
Posted by: J.R. Stoodley | May 2, 2006 9:52:07 PM
I'm gonna just put the first part of this out there and let the chips fall where they may.
whosebob: Putting your post and JR's post together basically means that the wife would actually be justified in killing her husband. That would be an act of self-defense, especially considering that even the most optomistic studies state that condoms fail 10% of the time. Seeing as (once again) latex has naturally occurring holes 100 microns in size and the AIDS virus is about one micron, it is more than likely that even a condom won't protect her from repeated incidence of this form of rape.
Which leads to the other two points I'd like to make. Firstly, why would such a horrible man, who would selfishly take his wife's safety so lightly (in the first place by fooling around on her and in the second place by insisting that she succumb to his advances) ever agree to the inconvenience of a condom? Secondly, anyone who would advocate this form of "protection" in this type of situation, is, in fact, sanctioning rape.
The One, True Church can (and will) NEVER advocate such a thing.
Posted by: Jared Weber | May 2, 2006 11:52:25 PM
I see the pro-condom argument wrong on two counts, even before beginning to explore the couple's intent and whether there's a principle of double effect.
The argument presumes that the couple MUST have sex, or at least sexual relations of SOME type, whether it's licit or not. To come out with a valid Church teaching, you need to address what is true, and here's what is true: Individuals do not need to have orgasms to survive. We're not talking about couples who only have two options--sex without a condom or mutual masturbation with a condom.
The pro-condom argument also must presume that if a couple can't have licit, natural sex as it's intended to be, then mutual masturbation with a piece of plastic is a licit option.
In this one little presumption being made, suddenly masturbation is no longer an objective evil.
Basically, allowing condoms is saying this: "Since we presume that you MUST have some type of sexual relations, then it's okay to mutually masturbate with a piece of plastic between you" (which is technically not even sex!).
The principle of double effect often seems to be abused by people who accept false premises.
How can we be questioning "condomized sex" when it's not even sex at all anyway, but masturbation?
It seems that only once you've admitted presuming these things--1.) that people MUST have some option condoned for them to continue to have orgasms, and 2.) that mutual masturbation is a licit option and masturbation is no longer an objective evil, can you even begin to proceed in exploring the couple's intent, the principle of double effect, and so forth.
But the way I see it, the "debate" halts even before exploring these points. I also never buy the 'lesser evil' argument and I'm sure nobody else on this blog does either. The Church I know might call one thing less evil than another, but She will also never congratulate anyone for performing lesser evils, or condone lesser evils.
Cheers
Posted by: Karen | May 3, 2006 1:08:15 AM
"In other words encouraging condom use will result in more infection not less."
This is exactly, what has happened in Africa. God have mercy on us for it! (Laura)
Was the second comment serious?
Posted by: Nihil | May 3, 2006 3:45:42 AM
An article by Peter Popham of The Online Idependent about this issue appears on the Drudge Report.
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article361564.ece
Posted by: Paul Hoffer | May 3, 2006 5:16:12 AM
Jared and J.R., would you consider continuing this discussion in the thread I linked to at forums.catholic.com? I'd rather not take it much farther here in the comments section of Mr. Akin's blogsite -- it's just not very convenient.
I do hope, though, that Jimmy will weigh in on this marital-rape / AIDS / condom / self-defence scenario.
Posted by: | May 3, 2006 5:35:52 AM
Karen's point is mine exactly. Why must we ensure that one specific group of couples (AIDs/HIV-infected) are able to have sex, but not others who are similarly barred due to some health threat to the husband or wife? Why can't they be called to carry the cross as other couples with other health threats are called?
I think that those who are promoting this idea are falling for the political pressure of making AIDs/HIV the "favored" disease and believing it must be addressed unlike any other. There is no reason to carve out exceptions for AIDs/HIV, especially if the Church does not believe in exceptions in other cases of life/health threats resulting from marital sexual relations. [Forcible rape MAY be a different matter and I'll pass on that.]
Posted by: Peggy | May 3, 2006 5:52:36 AM
The previous comment inviting J.R. and Jared to forums.catholic.com was posted by me -- forgot to enter my personal details before clicking "post." :-)
J.R. you said:
"Something like sodomy however, which is intrinsically evil, may never be done even to save one's own life or any other noble purpose."
You should read the following document, published by the Holy See (Pontifical Council for the Family) in 1997:
VADEMECUM FOR CONFESSORS CONCERNING SOME ASPECTS OF THE MORALITY OF CONJUGAL LIFE
Here is a relevant quote:
"13. Special difficulties are presented by cases of cooperation in the sin of a spouse who voluntarily renders the unitive act infecund. In the first place, it is necessary to distinguish cooperation in the proper sense, from violence or unjust imposition on the part of one of the spouses, which the other spouse in fact cannot resist. This cooperation can be licit when the three following conditions are jointly met:
(1) when the action of the cooperating spouse is not already illicit in itself;
(2) when proportionally grave reasons exist for cooperating in the sin of the other spouse;
(3) when one is seeking to help the other spouse to desist from such conduct (patiently, with prayer, charity and dialogue; although not necessarily in that moment, nor on every single occasion).
14. Furthermore, it is necessary to carefully evaluate the question of cooperation in evil when recourse is made to means which can have an abortifacient effect."
I had these principles already in mind when thinking through the scenario I've proposed; there seems to be a new dimension added when in fact the cooperating spouse's life is in grave danger if a condom is *not* used, which has led me to think that in this case -- that is when the cooperting spouse does not have the choice not to have sexual relation, i.e. the wife will be forcibly raped by the husband if she does not meekly comply -- the cooperating spouse may be allowed even to procure and request / insist on their usage.
Posted by: whosebob | May 3, 2006 6:03:37 AM
I think Karen makes a very valid point. The whole idea of the "lesser evil" situation arises when your options are limited. Basically you are trying to do damage control so you try to choose the "less evil" option. But as Karen has said there are many situations where we DO have a choice and therefore are not pushed into a suboptimal situation. In the case of condoms in HIV infected couple there is a moral choice: abstain! So I don't see how we can justify using condoms when there is a perfectly valid and moral solution!
If some freak accident happened to a man and he lost the usage of his sexual organs (impotence) and medicine could not solve the problem then he wouldn't be told by the Church that it's ok to use a plastic prosthesis or something similar so that he can have relations with his wife. Because that wouldn't be sex anyways. So why would it be different in this situation?
As beautiful, good and important sex in marriage is, it's not compulsory. A couple might have to do without if necessary whether you think that's fair or not. If anything we should be willing to pray and help those couples in any way we can.
Posted by: skyhawk | May 3, 2006 6:04:43 AM
It's almost as though the Church is engaging in some kind of instruction for those who already ignore its teaching. "Well, since they aren't listening to our instruction on properly ordered sex, lets not lead them to believe that we would expect them to do something more evil."
I'm not particularly certain what the moral good is in that except that, perhaps, the Church can have a clear conscience about how it has instructed all of mankind, not just the faithful.
But the Church needs to be very careful how it presents this teaching. If the teaching of condoms is issued as a teaching on "lesser evils" then it does not apply to us, the faithful. Short of being held at gun point and being ordered to have sex, condomized or otherwise, with an HIV person (who happens to be your spouse), otherwise the HIV person gets it ... I can't think of why this teaching would ever enter into the realm of morally licit possibilities for someone.
I fear, should this teaching be issued, we might have another thing along the lines of the Truce of 1968 that Tim Jones blogged about a few days ago - validation to ignore the Church on what is proper and expected among the faithful.
Posted by: AnotherCoward | May 3, 2006 6:50:17 AM
Despite one commentator trying to address it above I can't get past how people can say it is holy and redeeming that those who have neutered themselves have relations, but the tiniest minority of a minority cannot protect herself from a fatal and deadly disease. If it is gravely sinful to protect oneself against a deadly disease, then it better be gravely sinful to engage in sex after neutering oneself.
Posted by: M.Z. Forrest | May 3, 2006 6:56:31 AM
M.Z. Forrest,
It is gravely sinful to neuter ones self, but after that you may indeed have sex. After the fact, the man (or woman) is simply infertile, and if nothing is done to close a marital act to life then nothing objectively evil is being done.
whosebob,
I was aware of the principle you pointed out about a spouse submitting to "condomized sex" but did not know where it came from so did not mention it. However, in that case the woman is not engaging in contraception herself, but rather fighting against it in some way. In your senario, she is really the one contracepting, and the husband the one going along with it, despite the anatomical details. So again, if contraception is intrinsically evil then it is never permitted.
Posted by: J.R. Stoodley | May 3, 2006 7:22:55 AM
Sterilization is a one-time act that can be repented of.
Having sex while wishing you hadn't sterilized yourself isn't the same thing as engaging in a sex act that you have not intentionally rendered sterile, though. Wishful thinking isn't the same thing as intent.
Suppose someone intentionally put on a condom that could never be removed. (Assume for the sake of argument that other bodily functions still work, etc). Is it possible for such a person to engage in a licit marital act?
The answer is not an obvious "yes". Having sex while wishing you had not intentionally put on a condom is not objectively the same act as having sex without a condom, it seems to me. Wishful thinking is not the same thing as intent. What we intend is what we choose. We may wish we had not chosen something that makes our present state what it is, but wishing we hadn't done it doesn't mean that we are licensed to act as though we hadn't done it.
Posted by: Zippy | May 3, 2006 7:47:10 AM
