Pope B16 & The New Condom Controversy

[MithLuin]

Here's the pope's full remarks:

[quote]From Chapter 11, "The Journeys of a Shepherd," pages 117-119:

On the occasion of your trip to Africa in March 2009, the Vatican’s policy on AIDs once again became the target of media criticism.Twenty-five percent of all AIDs victims around the world today are treated in Catholic facilities. In some countries, such as Lesotho, for example, the statistic is 40 percent. In Africa you
stated that the Church’s traditional teaching has proven to be the only sure way to stop the spread of HIV. Critics, including critics from the Church’s own ranks, object that it is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms.

The media coverage completely ignored the rest of the trip to Africa on account of a single statement. Someone had asked me why the Catholic Church adopts an unrealistic and ineffective position on AIDs. At that point, I really felt that I was being provoked, because the Church does more than anyone else. And I stand by that claim. Because she is the only institution that assists people up close and concretely, with prevention, education, help, counsel, and accompaniment. And because she is second to none in treating so many AIDs victims, especially children with AIDs.

I had the chance to visit one of these wards and to speak with the patients. That was the real answer: The
Church does more than anyone else, because she does not speak from the tribunal of the newspapers, but helps her brothers and sisters where they are actually suffering. In my remarks I was not making a general statement about the condom issue, but merely said, and this is what caused such great offense, that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms. Much more needs to be done. We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease.

As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to
show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is
understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.

Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

[url=http://www.catholicworldreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=221:pope-benedict-xvi-discusses-condoms-and-the-spread-of-hiv&catid=53:cwr2010&Itemid=70](source)[/url]
[/quote]

As you can see, he was specifically commenting on the media storm he caused [i]last[/i] time he spoke about AIDs and condoms. Sorta ironic. The message is the same. If people follow the sexual morality preached by the Catholic church, they won't contract sexually transmitted diseases, such as AIDS. Obviously, the use of a condom by a homosexual male couple (prostitute or otherwise) does not have anything to do with contraception, and is primarily intended to avoid the spread of disease. And I think everyone knows by now what the Catholic Church's view on the morality of such an act would be.

Here's an article reposted in one of the comments to Jimmy's article:

[quote]Last year while in Africa, Pope Benedict XVI issued a statement in regard to HIV and condoms.

Does anybody recall the following response that was posted by Fr. Z?

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/03/harvard-prof-defends-benedict-xvi-on-condoms-and-aids/


Harvard Researcher agrees with Pope on condoms in Africa [Not a CUA prof, a HARVARD prof.]

Cambridge, Mass., Mar 21, 2009 / 10:11 am (CNA).- Pope Benedict’s recent brief remark against condoms has caused an uproar in the press, but several prominent scientists dedicated to preventing AIDS are defending the Pope, saying he was correct in his analysis. In an interview with CNA, Dr. Edward Green explained that although condoms should work, in theory, they may be “exacerbating the problem” in Africa.

Benedict XVI’s Tuesday comments on condoms were made as part of his explanation of the Church’s two prong approach to fighting AIDS. At one point in his response the Pontiff stressed that AIDS cannot be overcome by advertising slogans and distributing condoms and argued that they “worsen the problem.” The media responded with an avalanche of over 4,000 articles on the subject, calling Benedict a “threat to public health,” and saying that the Catholic Church should “enter the 21st century.”

Senior Harvard Research Scientist for AIDS Prevention, Dr. Edward Green, who is the author of five books, including “Rethinking AIDS Prevention: Learning from Successes in Developing Countries” discussed his support for Pope Benedict XVI’s comments with CNA.

According to Dr. Green, science is finding that the media is actually on the wrong side of the issue. In fact, Green says that not only do condoms not work, but that they may be “exacerbating the problem” in Africa.

“Theoretically, condoms ought to work,” he explained to CNA, “and theoretically, some condom use ought to be better than no condom use, but that’s theoretically.”

Condom proponents often cite the lack of condom education as the main culprit for higher AIDS rates in Africa but Green disagrees.

After spending 25 years promoting condoms for family planning purposes in Africa, he insists that he’s quite familiar with condom promotion. Yet, he claims that “anyone who worked in family planning knew that if you needed to prevent a pregnancy, say the woman will die, you don’t recommend a condom.”

Green recalls that when the AIDS epidemic hit Africa, the “Industry” began using AIDS as a “dual purpose” marketing strategy to get more funding for condom distribution. This, he claims, effectively took “something that was a 2nd or 3rd grade device for avoiding unwanted pregnancies” and turned it into the “best weapon we [had] against AIDS.”

The accepted wisdom in the scientific community, explained Green, is that condoms lower the HIV infection rate, but after numerous studies, researchers have found the opposite to be true. “We just cannot find an association between more condom use and lower HIV reduction rates” in Africa.

Dr. Green found that part of the elusive reason is a phenomenon known as risk compensation or behavioral disinhibition.

“[Risk compensation] is the idea that if somebody is using a certain technology to reduce risk, a phenomenon actually occurs where people are willing to take on greater risk.” The idea can be related to someone that puts on sun block and is willing to stay out in the sun longer because they have added protection. In this case, however, the greater risk is sexual. Because people are willing take on more risk, they may “disproportionally erase” the benefits of condom use, Green said.

Another factor that contributes to ineffective condom use in Africa, is the phenomenon where condoms may be effective on an “individual level,” but not on a “population level.” Green’s research found that “condoms have been effective” in HIV concentrated areas where high risk activities are already being conducted, such as brothels in countries like Thailand.

Claiming to be a liberal himself, Green asserts that promoting Western “liberal ideology” where, “most Africans are conservative when it comes to sexual behavior,” is quite offensive to them. Citing his new book, “Indigenous Theories and Contagious Disease,” Green described Africans as “very religious by global standards” who are offended by “trucks going around where people are dancing to ‘Rock ‘n’ Roll’, tossing out condoms to teenagers and the children of the village.”

Green also noted that there is an ideology called “harm reduction” that is being pushed by many organizations trying to prevent AIDS. The ideology believes that “you can’t change the underlying behavior, that you can’t get people to be faithful, especially Africans,” the HIV specialist explained.

One country, Uganda, recognized these issues and said, “Listen, if you have multiple sex partners, you are going to get AIDS.” What worked in Uganda, a country that has seen a decline by as much as 2/3 in AIDS infections, was that officials realized that even aside from religious and cultural reasons, “no one likes condoms.” Instead of waiting for “American and European advisors to arrive,” Ugandan officials reacted and developed a program that fit their culture; their main message being “stick to one partner or love faithfully.”

However, in 2004, Uganda’s AIDS infection rates began to increase once again, due to an influx of condoms and Western “advice”, Green recalled. Western donors also came to Uganda and said behavioral change doesn’t work and that, “most infections nowadays are among married people.” Green said these claims are “misleading,” pointing out that “married people always have lower HIV infection rates than single or divorced people of the same age group.”

Green’s new book, “AIDS and Ideology,” to be completed in the next few months, will describe the industry in Africa that is “drawing billions of dollars a year promoting condoms, testing, drugs, and treatment of AIDS” and is clearly resistant to the idea that behavioral change is the solution.

Yet the two countries that have the highest infection rate of AIDS in the world, Botswana and Swaziland, have recently launched campaigns to promote fidelity and monogamy, the Harvard researcher said. These countries “have learned the hard way” about the failure of condoms in preventing AIDS, he said, noting that “Botswana has probably had more condom promotion” than any other county on a per capita basis. Green said he had no problem “having condoms as a backup to fidelity-based programs.”

According to Green, the Catholic Church should continue to “do what it is already doing,” avoid “arguing about the diameter of viruses” and cite scientific evidence in connection with scripture and moral theology. [/quote]

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html]Here's[/url] the Washington Post editorial by Green. The point is that if you really want to reduce the transmission of the disease in a far-flung pandemic like this, then, duh, you will have to reduce the risk factors. And that means to reduce the number of people who have multiple partners - fidelity is the way to go, baby!

[Jaime]

What the pope is saying is that condoms are not intrinsically evil, contraception is. [b]

WARNING: "I TOLD YOU SO" COMING WARNING: "I TOLD YOU SO" COMING WARNING: "I TOLD YOU SO" COMING WARNING: "I TOLD YOU SO" COMING[/b]

I got a lot of grief from a few folk who when I said the same thing in the past, accused me of being liberal and not following Catholic doctrine. But the Holy Father is stating that things (like condoms) cannot hold any intrinsic value. Actions (like contraception) can! So I say

NEENER NEENER NEENER NEENER!


Now let's return to our regularly scheduled discussion.

[CatherineM]

I just think it is a stroke of genius. He has found a way to compromise without having to compromise. He's right. Condoms aren't contraception when used by two men. I truly never thought of it that way.

[holly.o]

[quote]"...the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality..."[/quote]

This prophetic quote is being realized in how sexually-obsessed and banal the media is being by focusing on this issue.

I think he made a very smart, philosophical statement. Also a very merciful one - God does see good intentions even when they aren't in a moral context. I doubt any of us are perfect in our love and actions, and this seems to be what Pope Benedict is saying - that [i]at least[/i] this would be the beginning of a moral conscience in this (very hypothetical) case.

[Era Might]

I sometimes wonder whether journalists would be capable of writing a one-page (double spaced) book report on "The Cat in the Hat."

Edited November 21, 2010 by Era Might

[Micah]

I don't understand the controversy.. It makes sense to me, it doesn't seem overwhelmingly controversial.. I dunno, obviously the majority of people Catholic and non-Catholic are buzzing about this. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/idontknow.gif[/img]

Edited November 21, 2010 by Micah

[thessalonian]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1290311131' post='2188295']
no, the use of condoms in that scenario would be immoral, because the sexual act lacks the procreative meaning, thus making the moral object which is the second font of morality inherently evil and so the overall act immoral. A sexual act must have all three meanings, unitive, marital, procreative to be moral, inherently good. So the Pope would never teach this, not even in an interview, which is where the media distorted what the Pope answered.

Double effect is an analysis of the circumstance/consequences of the chosen act, the third font of morality, but use of condoms concerns the moral object of the sexual act which is the second font of morality. The first font of morality is intention/purpose/motive.

So for a sexual act to be moral it must have:

a good intention.
it must be truly unitive, marital, and procreative
and the good consequences of the act must outweigh the bad consequences.
[/quote]

I would disagree with your assessment here. If the unintended consequence of the use were that procreation is suppressed I don't think this would have to be immoral. Let's say a young couple intends to have a family. The father gets in an accident and gets aides through a blood transfusion. Their every diesire would be to have children but he now has aides and does not want to give his wife this horrible disease. Do you say they must be celibate the rest of their life?

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1290360093' post='2188378']
I just think it is a stroke of genius. He has found a way to compromise without having to compromise. He's right. Condoms aren't contraception when used by two men. I truly never thought of it that way.
[/quote]

And I'm glad that it has been pointed out. Some time ago a priest gave a homily about that. I think many, myself included mistakenly thought he was saying that condoms are OK in general because they prevent things such as diseases and unwanted pregnancies.

[kafka]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1290316839' post='2188312']
I have not seen any examples of the media distorting what the Holy Father is saying. This is what Time is saying
[/quote]
I meant in the sense that they fabricated a controversy.

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1290334733' post='2188329']
 This thing is being totally distorted. Kafka is right. Janet Smith has an excellent commentary on it:
[/quote]
another quote from Janet Smith's commentary:

"An analogy: If someone was going to rob a bank and was determined to use a gun, it would better for that person to use a gun that had no bullets in it. It would reduce the likelihood of fatal injuries. But it is not the task of the Church to instruct potential bank robbers how to rob banks more safely and certainly not the task of the Church to support programs of providing potential bank robbers with guns that could not use bullets. Nonetheless, the intent of a bank robber to rob a bank in a way that is safer for the employees and customers of the bank may indicate an element of moral responsibility that could be a step towards eventual understanding of the immorality of bank robbing."

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1290353861' post='2188345']
What the pope is saying is that condoms are not intrinsically evil, contraception is. [b]
[/quote]
I disagree with your assesment of what the Pope said, he was basically saying that the use of a condom in that particular circumstance is one good intention that might lead to a conversion of life.
But yes you are right, it is the use of condoms as a contraception, not the condom itself which is evil.

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1290364503' post='2188386']
I sometimes wonder whether journalists would be capable of writing a one-page (double spaced) book report on "The Cat in the Hat."
[/quote]

Edited November 21, 2010 by kafka

[kafka]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1290368543' post='2188392']
I would disagree with your assessment here. If the unintended consequence of the use were that procreation is suppressed I don't think this would have to be immoral. Let's say a young couple intends to have a family. The father gets in an accident and gets aides through a blood transfusion. Their every diesire would be to have children but he now has aides and does not want to give his wife this horrible disease. Do you say they must be celibate the rest of their life?
[/quote]
But procreation one of the three meanings which makes the moral object of the sexual act intrinsically good. Take this away by means of contraception and the moral object is lacking one of the three things which makes the nature of sexual act good. Suppressing procreation is not an unintended consequence, it is a means which makes the nature of the act itself evil. It falls into the second font of morality not the third. The only moral/intrinsically good sexual act is natural sexual relations (unitive), of a married male and female (marital) open to life (procreative).

If one of the spouses has HIV or Aids they would have to abstain, because the bad consequences of having natural sexual relations open to life would outweigh the good consequences, since this would infect the other spouse. So there is nothing they could do but pray and hope in God. An intention or an end cannot change the intrinsic value of a moral object:

Pope John Paul II: “Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act, intrinsically evil by virtue of its object, into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81.)

in your scenario the couple would be using an evil means, contraception, to attain an end which is also lacking in goodness, because the end lacks an openess to life, as well as being unnatural, use of contraception is unnatural and so not truly unitive, as well as not truly marital, because God wills all sexual acts within marriage (or period) to be moral. There would be no truly good reason for them to have sex, because these immoral contracepted acts would not truly strengthen their love or the marriage which is a mystery in God (a Sacrament). All three aspects of moral sexual acts, unitive/marital/procreative are distinct yet have a profound unity to make up the nature of the sexual act. It is a reflection of the Trinity.

Edited November 21, 2010 by kafka

[thessalonian]

"The only moral/intrinsically good sexual act is natural sexual relations (unitive), of a married male and female (marital) open to life (procreative)."

I don't need a catechism lesson from you regarding marriage. I've been through theology of the body about a dozen times and facilitated it twice. This is not violated in my senario. Sorry. The couple is fully open to life. The intention of the senario that I present is NOT to prevent pregnancy! Therefore it is an unintended consequence. Much like a woman having a medical procedure to have a tumor removed that ends in the loss of her child. You make the latex rather than what goes on in the heart and mind of the men and women the sin, the evil. Granted I don't have much respect for condoms but they are not wherin lies the evil. By the way in my mind the way you are presenting this a man and a woman spacing children through NFP are participating in an intrinsically evil act as well. Otherwise the latex is the sin. Otherwise the latex is the sin.

Edited November 22, 2010 by thessalonian

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1290389959' post='2188473']
"The only moral/intrinsically good sexual act is natural sexual relations (unitive), of a married male and female (marital) open to life (procreative)."

I don't need a catechism lesson from you regarding marriage. I've been through theology of the body about a dozen times and facilitated it twice. This is not violated in my senario. Sorry. The couple is fully open to life. The intention of the senario that I present is NOT to prevent pregnancy! Therefore it is an unintended consequence. Much like a woman having a medical procedure to have a tumor removed that ends in the loss of her child. You make the latex rather than what goes on in the heart and mind of the men and women the sin, the evil. Granted I don't have much respect for condoms but they are not wherin lies the evil. By the way in my mind the way you are presenting this a man and a woman spacing children through NFP are participating in an intrinsically evil act as well. Otherwise the latex is the sin. Otherwise the latex is the sin.
[/quote]
I have seen others give this argument in various forms, but it seems proportionalist to me and I've always thought it incompatible with this passage from Humanae Vitae (14):
[quote]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 —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.[/quote]
I'm interested in any thoughts.

[kafka]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1290389959' post='2188473']
"The only moral/intrinsically good sexual act is natural sexual relations (unitive), of a married male and female (marital) open to life (procreative)."

I don't need a catechism lesson from you regarding marriage. I've been through theology of the body about a dozen times and facilitated it twice. This is not violated in my senario. Sorry. The couple is fully open to life. The intention of the senario that I present is NOT to prevent pregnancy! Therefore it is an unintended consequence. Much like a woman having a medical procedure to have a tumor removed that ends in the loss of her child. You make the latex rather than what goes on in the heart and mind of the men and women the sin, the evil. Granted I don't have much respect for condoms but they are not wherin lies the evil. By the way in my mind the way you are presenting this a man and a woman spacing children through NFP are participating in an intrinsically evil act as well. Otherwise the latex is the sin. Otherwise the latex is the sin.
[/quote]


I dont know what to say other than this is seriously not good.

The chosen act of the couple using a contraceptive as a means to an end is not open to life. An intention or a conseqence cannot change the intrinsic value, meaning, or nature of an act. And their intented means is not open to life. You are contradicting your own statements. You are basically saying that an intended and chosen means (an immoral act in this case), bypasses the intrinsic nature of an act, and falls into the consequences because the heart and mind of the couple says so. But what is really happening is they are changing the nature of the sexual act lacking procreation and thereby evil into something good in their own fallen minds. A man or woman cannot change the nature of an act because they intend to. I cannot change the nature of a lie, which is the expression of a falsehood into an expression of truth because I intend to. This is absurd:

{5:20} Woe to you who call evil good, and good evil; who substitute darkness for light, and light for darkness; who exchange bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

It has nothing to do with latex, it has everything to do with the inherent meaning of the act. When a contraceptive is used the procreative meaning is lacking and the intention is to use an immoral means to accomplish what is in the end also immoral because the bad consequences of using an immoral means which is an objective mortal sin by nature would outweigh whatever good ends the sexual act would have which at this point would be mere pleasure, because a truly unitive and marital meaning is damaged and lacking without the procreative meaning as I explained above about their intrinsic unity of the three meanings as a reflection of the Nature of God which is Three Persons in One. You know the end does not justify the means.

The other examples you present are totally irrelevant to this. NFP is natural and open to life. A couple in theory could use NFP as a contraceptive, but using the knowledge of NFP would be an immoral means to accomplish an immoral end just like using a condom or the pill is a means to an end damaging the inherent moral meaning of the sexual act. A woman having her cancer treated is a moral act, and the good consequences would have to outweigh the bad consequences of losing her babies life, for example if she does not get the cancer treated both her life and the life of her baby would be lost. And she must have the good intention of saving her life for the overall act to be moral. But the medical treatment directed at healing the cancer is a moral act by nature. The moral object of the act is to heal the cancer, not to kill the baby.

But the moral object of a sexual act must under God have a unitive/marital/procreative meaning regardless of intention or circumstance/consequences in order to be moral. And in addition the intention and consequences must be good for the overall act to be moral. Three fonts of morality:

[1] the intention, or end, or purpose, or motive, of the person
[2] the moral object, or object, or species, or nature, of the act itself
[3] the circumstances, or consequences, of the intentionally chosen act

all three distinct fonts must be good for the overall act to be good.

(edited out sarcasm. quickly repented of inordinate anger )

Edited November 22, 2010 by kafka

[kafka]

[quote name='thedude' timestamp='1290390735' post='2188477']
I have seen others give this argument in various forms, but it seems proportionalist to me and I've always thought it incompatible with this passage from Humanae Vitae (14):

I'm interested in any thoughts.
[/quote]
I agree with you.

Good source quote.

[CatherineM]

Whole thing made the first story on our news tonight. It was kind of nice to see the Pope on TV for something other than him apologizing.