Here's one from allAfrica.com about entitled "Botswana: No Condoms, We're Catholic."
Father John Corrigan of the Roman Catholic Church in Gaborone reveals that St. Joseph's clinic is both a mission clinic and a government- aided clinic. He then states that it functions according to the Roman Catholic Holy Act, which does not treat sex lightly.Father John says that during this era of HV/AIDS pandemic, the church encourages a new message to the youth - "practice safe sex".
"Sex is a secret and holy act that is meant to be a gift from God to husband and wife. However, with young people engaging in pre-marital sex, we encourage safe sex under two conditions. Don't get AIDS. Don't get pregnant," he says.
Well Fr John, what do you expect to happen if the kids engage in this so-called "safe sex"? Are there actually priests out there who are so uninformed that they think prophylactics and pills actually help these situations? It may be worth asking whether priests and religious educators in Africa have access to information readily available in developed countries where it only takes a few clicks to uncover less savory facts on contraceptives. Like for example the following from Pure Love Club:
The male condom is a much more common form of contraception, but few people are aware of its disadvantages and failure rate. For example, the condom has not been proven to prevent the transmission of some of the most common STDs. When it comes to preventing HPV (human papillomavirus), the American Cancer Society reported, "Condoms cannot protect against infection with HPV." Young people often think that the condom has a 99 percent effectiveness rate in preventing pregnancy. However, this figure has been arrived at in laboratories by calculating the size of a man's sperm as compared to the pores in a latex condom. Should a couple use a condom perfectly every time, the failure rate in preventing pregnancy is 2 to 3 percent. But, the condom's typical failure rate in preventing pregnancies among people aged fifteen to twenty-four is 18.4 percent.
Even forgetting the many medical pitfalls of the contraceptive initiatives in Africa and the globe, the fact is that contraception is simply below the dignity of the human person. The article actually quotes Then-Cardinal Ratzinger from a letter written in 1988:
To seek a solution to the problem of infection by promoting the use of prophylactics would be to embark on a way not only insufficiently reliable from the technical point of view, but also and above all, unacceptable from the moral aspect. Such a proposal for "safe" or at least "safer" sex--as they say--ignores the real cause of the problem, namely, the permissiveness which, in the area of sex as in that related to other abuses, corrodes the moral fibre of the people.
Right on right on right on Your Imminence (now Holiness)! I am so glad this man is our pope.
Advising people to use condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS is not that big of a deal. Get over it.
Abstinence, of course, prevents the sexual transmission of the disease.
As you and I know, most people end up having sex anyways, no matter what the Church tells them. Even the most devout end up falling at some point.
We cannot force people not to have sex. But we can advise them to take precautions and warn them that prophylactics don't always work. However, we should not forget about the primary message of absitienence and fidelity.
While I agree with church teaching on contraception, there are far greater crimes and sins than simply using a condom.
Advising people to use condoms for any reason is intrinsically evil. Using condoms is a mortal sin, provided it is done with full knowledge and consent of the will. These are not opinions, but Catholic doctrinal facts. If intrinsic evils and mortal sins are "no big deal," then you are right.
The question really is why it is such a big deal to the Church and to our pope. One possible reason is that the distribution of contraception is the very source of the sexual permissiveness that creates such an atmosphere of promiscuity in the first place, be it in Africa, the United States or anywhere else.
The Church does not accept the premise that "most people will have sex anyway." That would not be a statement of human behavior but of human identity--that human beings are incapable of treating themselves and each other with the dignity which God has given them. The Church as the messenger of Christ in the world calls people to recognize that dignity. Distributing condoms effectively negates that message.
It is true that we cannot force anyone not to have sex. But we CAN make it difficult for people to make those decisions. For that is the definition of a good society, as GK Chesterton put it. A good society is one that makes it easy to be good and difficult to be bad. A bad society is one that makes it easy to be bad and difficult to be good. What is the distribution of contraception but the vain attempt to make it easy to live sinfully, to remove natural consequences from sinful behavior? And how can that be good for society in the long run?
It is true that the action of putting on the condom is not in itself the most serious sin here. What is most egregiously offensive to God here is the exploitation and objectification of both parties who engage in contracepted sex. It is the use of each other as commodities for the experience of pleasure rather than the loving affirmation of each other's value as children of God. The problem is that, as I said, it is precisely the prophylactic itself that makes that egregious offense against God and against the sexual partner possible or at least a seemingly more viable option. That's why the Church refuses to compromise and why it is such a shame when one of her priests is willing to.
Using a condom is in fact an intrinsic evil, if one accepts Humanae Vitae (and many Catholic theologians, bishops, and cardinals do not, by the way). While I accept the church's teaching on the issue, using a condom is nothing next something like abortion, fornication, and murder. Most people who decide to have sex outside of marriage are not worried about the morality of using condoms. If they make the choice to have sex, they should be using condoms. They shouldn't be having sex in the first place, but it makes little sense to place them at risk of infection merely to conform to a doctrine that most Catholics and Christians of other denominations reject.
Perhaps we should outlaw fornication, divorce and remarriage while we are at it rather than allow society to permit (objectively speaking) mortal sins to take place.
The Church does not accept the premise that most people will have sex anyways. But it should accept the reality of this basic fact. It would be sinful for the church to do anything that people's access to condoms. I am not suggesting that priest and Catholic hospitals/services hand them out. Nor should the Church back down from proclaiming the need for abstinence and fidelity. But health professionals, even those at Catholic affiliated places, should advise people to use condoms if they ever decide to have sex outside of marriage.
Sure we can make it harder for people to make the decision to have sex. But, as far as I know, there are no laws against contraceptives in Africa. Furthermore, it would be utterly ridiculous and unconstitutional to outlaw condom distribution in the US. People can and will make up their mind about contraception, divorce, and sex outside of marriage. Perhaps the best way to make it difficult for people to make these decisions would be to hack off the offending members of our bodies or implant electrical devices that deliver high voltage jolts whenever impure thoughts arise. The US can make this mandatory starting with adolescents and then ship them abroad (via the UN perhaps) to people in third world countries.
--I agree with your last paragraph about the offense and meaning of contraception. But the fact is that some people use them to help prevent the sread of AIDS, not to prevent pregnancy. We are talking about the lesser of two evils, perhaps even the principle of double effect. When you are a priest, you should advise people not to have sex outside of marriage. It is also wise to tell people, particularly young adults, to use protection, however limited it is, to prevent transmission of diseases. If they are going to 'fornicate,' the use of a condom hardly adds to their sin anyways. Think about it.
"Using a condom is in fact an intrinsic evil, if one accepts Humanae Vitae (and many Catholic theologians, bishops, and cardinals do not, by the way)."
You're talking about two different things here: 1) objective reality and 2) the subjective personal acceptance thereof. Using a condom is intrinsically evil, period. Whether or not one subjectively accepts Humanae Vitae and the teaching of the Catholic Church (and every other Christian Church on the planet up until 1930) does not change the objective reality. It only affects whether or not the person is in touch with that objective reality, i.e, whether or not the person is right. If someone has not subjectively accepted the objective reality, they are wrong. So the theologians, bishops, and cardinals who disagree with Humanae Vitae and the teaching of the Christian Church are wrong. The pope is right. That's why I'm glad he's the pope.
I can only submit that when you say that "using a condom is nothing" compared with these other offenses that you are introducing into the question a subjective personal criterion that the Church does not recognize. It's an unjustifiable and mortal sin. It's not excommunicable like abortion is. But if it's perpetrated with full knowledge and consent, it cuts off one's relationship with God and must be confessed. In that sense it is equal to the offenses of fornication and murder. Cutting off one's relationship with God is such wise does not solve anything. And in the case of fornication, as I said, it is precisely the condom and other devices that make fornication (subjectively) possible.
It does make very little sense to place people at risk of infection. But the Church is not doing that. THEY are, by having sex to begin with. What makes more sense: the Church conforming her teachings to the sins of her flock or the flock conforming its behavior to the teaching of their shepherds (who are guided by Christ himself)? This just isn't that complicated to me. The Church is doing everything she can to ensure the safety of her faithful, but she cannot pull strings and she cannot write new law. Paul VI said it in Humanae Vitae 18:
Your comments about hacking off offending members and implanting electrical devices is a testament to how immersed in secular athropological thought you are and frankly, it affects your credibility as a Catholic thinker with me. People who oppose the widespread use of condoms are not sadists. They are dedicated to promoting the common good in a way that will actually work and actually benefit society in the long term.
If and when I become a priest, that is what I will continue to do, by encouraging people not to think of themselves as bunny rabbits or orangutans but as children created in God's image who have the ability to conform their passions and appetites to their reason and their virtues. The more skeptics and pessimists scoff at such ideals, the more they add to the existing problem. I implore you, then, to stop adding to the problem.
The gospel of Jesus Christ is a call to the fullness of life. It is not a call to mediocrity or compromise. To buy into the notion of allowing intrinsic evils in the name of compromise does not lead to mediocrity, but to wickedness. Abortion only became the problem that it is today after contraception had begun to saturate the market and people found that it didn't always work.
Abortion is backup contraception. It is the final solution to the pregnancy problem. And the pregnancy problem starts when people have sex in imprudent situations. And people (not all, but some) do that when they think they can. And people think they can when they wear condoms, and swallow the pill, and whatever else. This stuff is not the solution, it is part of the problem and adds to it.
The solution is the life that comes from Christ. He did not say to the woman, "Go, and if you're gonna do this again, make sure you don't get caught." He said, "Go and sin no more." That is Christ's message, the Church's message, and the pope's message. If it's not your message, then your message is not Christian. And it won't work. Think about that.
Mark, I am well aware of the Church's message and the fine distinctions you make in your response.
However, the bishops and theologians who disagree with the pope on birth control are not necessarily wrong. Pope Paul did not invoke papal infallibility in Humanae Vitae. If anything it was an assertion of constant teaching. This teaching, however, is by no means of the highest level. You should recall that there is a 'hierarchy' of truths. Church 'teaching' has in fact changed over the years. Do some research on usury, slavery, and abortion. 'Constant, universal' teaching is entirely mythical.
In any case, you are confusing moral and civil law. The two, of course, overlap, but there is not perfect overlap.
My comment on hacking off members is merely an exaggeration of your unrealistic demand to make illicit sex harder for people to obtain.
You have some interesting thoughts, but the seminary will loosen up your rigidity and lack of pastoral understanding (as it did for me and my classmates).
The availability of condoms do not make fornication any more available. People did it before and after their availability. The fact that so many teenagers don't use them supports this fact. What causes young people to have sex is the general culture and acceptance of sex, esp. in the media. Condoms and the pill certainly have a role in developing this culture. Do you recommend that the United States ban all contraceptives? Should it criminalize divorce, premarital sex, homosexual acts, and adultery? You make it sound as if anyone who would oppose such legal actions is not a 'Catholic thinker.'
Look Mark, I've been a priest for years. The teaching on birth control is great and idealistic. It should not be abandoned. It can, however, probably be altered a bit. Do some reading. Notice that Humanae Vitae does in fact significantly depart from previous teaching by giving equal weight to the procreative and unitive elements of sex.
People who have sex outside of marriage should use condoms or the pill. If they don't they place themselves at greater risk for STDs and for unwanted pregnancies. This can lead to death and of course abortion--consequences neither of us wants for anyone. This does not compromise church teaching or make their sin any less. But it is the lesser of two evils.
People should not be sinning in the first place, and we must preach this message. You won't win people over to this message by banning contraceptives. They have to be won over by Christ and his love.
In Africa and other places where AIDS is an epidemic, people ought to have access to condoms. They should be advised to use them. In cases where a huspand or wife has AIDS, condoms should be used if they decide to have sex.
In these cases, the use of a condom is not necessarily a mortal sin.
Do some internet research. It has been reported by several newspapers that the Vatican is going to release a new document on condoms and AIDS. If the newspapers are correct, then you are in for a big surprise.
Fr Mike: It's pretty clear to me at this point that I won't be able to convince you of anything. So I'm just going to speak my peace and if you want to have the last word, Father, be my guest.
There's nothing "fine" about my distinctions. They're common sense.
The theologians and bishops who disagree with the pope are quite necessarily wrong. If someone is wrong about an issue that is low on the hierarchy of truths (assuming that's the case here), that person is still wrong.
I am aware that Church teaching has changed over the years in some areas. But to say that "constant universal teaching is entirely mythical" is an egregious error. "Love one another as I love you." Is that not a constant universal teaching? Your comment reminds me of what GK Chesterton said, of how lots of people start out fighting the Church in the name of truth and freedom, and in the end wind up tossing aside truth and freedom, if only they may fight the Church. In trying to convince me of the unbinding nature of the Church's and popes' teaching on contraception, you have gone so far as to say there is no such thing as universal constant teaching. I'm sure you did not mean to imply that, but that's how I received it, and assuming I'm not the first Catholic person with whom you've used such language, I would invite you to be careful.
There's nothing unrealistic about the call to the perfection of Christian holiness. There is something quite unrealistic about telling the faithful what they shouldn't do and then giving them the tools to do that very thing.
I am not rigid. I am free. And I want all my sisters and brothers in the Body of Christ to be so as well. To assume that some in the Mystical Body cannot attain that freedom, and thus it is necessary to behave towards them as if they will not, is condescending. To assume that it is not possible to enjoy that freedom without copulation is narrow-minded. But I'm sure you know this, as a celibate.
I am sure that seminary will increase my pastoral understanding. But I must ask you, Father: If I were to tell a parishioner that "you should not have sex before marriage and I'm not gonna appease your conscience by telling you you can use a condom; GET OVER IT," that would be quite unpastoral, would it not? But in your very first comment to my entry, you used those exact three words with me, when you said, "Using condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS is not that big of a deal. Get over it." What, I must ask you, is pastoral about that?
Humanae Vitae doesn't depart. It develops. And I'm sure I don't need to tell you about the fundamental interconnectedness of the two ends of coitus. Doing offense to one means doing offense to the act in its entirety, which means doing offense to both.
The premise behind your "lesser evils" argument is that death is a greater evil than sin. I disagree. Death is the consequence of sin, and sinning under the pretense that it is possible to do so without dying is the greatest folly. Ultimately, the distribution of contraception will always lead to more deaths, physically and spiritually, not less. Making one exception means making every exception. We learned this in 1930.
Abortion, disease and death take place in the world because people are having sex outside of God's design, not because people are not using contraception. We have to fight this fire at the source. The source isn't "unsafe sex," it's sin.
Christ's love is precisely the driving force behind the Church's banning of contraceptives. We have to emphasize Christ's love for his children, and that in him can be found a truth, a freedom, and a love that transcends the physical orgasm. The people of Africa are entirely capable of hearing and embracing this message. Throwing condoms at the problem amounts at best to a distraction from that message and at worst to an invitation away from it.
If other people wish to comment I invite them to do so, but as a contributing author I have to sign off from this particular thread and focus my energies on other entries. Hopefully they will lead to similar banter.
Interesting posts. I think the whole birth control issue is a waste of time. The important thing is that couples remain open to procreation throughout their whole marriage. This does not mean that every sexual act must be open to procreation (that is, by the way, biologically impossible). Humanae Vitae actually represents a change in church teaching. It is not an infallible document. Bishops all around the world advised their people to consider it and use their conscience.
I fully agree with Mark that we need to urge people to abstinence and fidelity. This is the only sure way to prevent AIDS. But we also need to educate people about condoms. They do not always work, but they are better than nothing. Abstinence is better than everything else, of course.
I would be interested in seeing how the Vatican responds to the AIDS condom issue. I could not find any article about an upcoming document. But here is an interesting excerpt from John Allen's weekly NCR report from Rome:
In upholding the moral tolerability of condoms as a "lesser evil" in the context of HIV/AIDS, Martini joins Cardinal George Cottier, theologian of the Papal Household under John Paul II; Cardinal Godfriend Danneels of Belgium; Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, President of the Pontifical Council for Pastoral Health; Cardinal Cormac Muphy-O'Connor of Westminster, England; and Bishop Kevin Dowling of South Africa.
In 2004, the Indian bishops launched an awareness campaign about HIV/AIDS that includes information on condoms, and in 2005, a spokesperson for the Spanish bishops said that condoms might be justified in some circumstances to combat the disease.
Msgr. Angel Rodriguez Luño, an Opus Dei priest, a professor at Santa Croce University in Rome, and a consultor for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has said there's actually not much debate over the theology; most moralists, he said, believe the argument for condoms as a lesser evil is fairly clear. The question is how to explain that conclusion in a way that doesn't seem to offer a free pass for irresponsible sexual behavior.
"The problem is, anytime we try to give a nuanced response, we see headlines that say, 'Vatican approves condoms,' Rodriguez Luño told The Washington Post Jan. 23, 2005.
"The issue is more complicated than that. From a moral point of view, we cannot condone contraception. We cannot tell a classroom of 16-year-olds they should use condoms. But if we are dealing with someone or a situation in which persons are clearly going to act in harmful ways, a prostitute who is going to continue her activities, then one might say, 'Stop. But if you are not going to, at least do this.'"