In the last issue of the Crier, Matt Hurd expressed some confusion about what Pope Benedict XVI had to say about the use of condoms to fight AIDS in Africa. Perhaps many of you are confused as well. So I decided to offer this explanation in the hopes of bringing clarity to what might be the Pope’s confusing statement. This is what the Pope said about the Church’s position regarding the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS:
“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be the 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.”
The pope’s observation raised the hopes of liberals, some of whom read in this statement a possible shift in the Church’s position on contraception. Conservatives, on the other hand, were left bewildered, even discouraged that the pope had seemingly called into question the Church’s teaching on contraception and backtracked on his previous statements regarding the use of condoms and the AIDS crisis.
The news services made much ado about whether the pope had referred to “male prostitutes” or to “female prostitutes” as if the latter, because she and her partner were preventing the conception of new life by the use of a condom, would be in clear violation of Church teaching, while the former would not be.
Others saw in the pope’s statement a possible position being taken by the Church on the use of condoms to prevent infection in the case of married couples where only one of the couple is infected.
But if one carefully reads what the pope said, and situates it within the constant teaching of the Church on contraception and the use of condoms, then liberals have no cause for rejoicing, conservatives have no reason for bewilderment or discouragement, and the news services need no longer speculate.
The first thing that needs to be clarified is that the pope’s statement has nothing to say about contraception. The teaching of Humanae vitae was directed solely to those who, through their vows to each other, are capable of choosing to separate the procreative meaning from the unitive meaning of conjugal intercourse by having recourse to contraception. Excluded, therefore, for married couples “is any action which either before, at the moment of, of after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.”
This teaching does not apply to those who are fornicating or to prostitutes, whether male or female. While it is true that those who fornicate and those who engage in prostitution may intend to impede procreation, because there is no unitive meaning as the Church understands it to these acts, a meaning that only married couples are able to realize fully, there is no separation between procreation and unity that is envisioned by Humanae vitae.
Given the somewhat narrow focus of Humanae vitae, then, there is no reason to read into the pope’s remarks a shift in the Church’s position on contraception.
Second, the pope did not backtrack on his earlier statement that condoms are not the solution to the AIDS crisis in Africa or anywhere else. In fact, just prior to his controversial statement, the pope reiterated the Church’s position:
“… we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms.” Why does the Church continue to ban the use of condoms to combat the scourge of HIV/AIDS? Surely, the ban has nothing to do with their contraceptive effect (unless we are dealing with married couples). Nor does the ban focus on condoms as such. A condom, after all, is merely a piece of latex or sheepskin. Only human choices are subject to moral praise or blame. Rather, the ban concerns two issues: the overall ineffectiveness of condoms in the fight against AIDS, and the banalization of sexuality that results from the use of contraception. Let me explain.
Many believe that responsible sex, whether in marriage or out of marriage, is exercised by using a contraception. The condom, in particular, is believed to act as a barrier that prevents the transmission of HIV. But like all contraception, condoms are not one hundred per cent safe. Incorrect use, damage caused by improper storage, inconsistency in their use, the type of condom: all of these contribute to the lack of complete effectiveness of condoms. Some condoms work better than others. Those made with sheepskin, for example, being more porous, are less likely to protect against the transmission of the virus than latex condoms. This being said, condoms are better than nothing if one is acting irresponsibly. While condoms are not the “best defense” as is often said against the spread of AIDS—only abstinence and fidelity can achieve that—they do provide some protection. That condoms do provide some protection is a two-edged sword, however. It is on the edges of this sword that their ineffectiveness and the banalization of sexuality meet.
In the wake of the protest over the pope’s remarks that condom use was not helping, and may be worsening the spread of AIDS in Africa, Edward C. Green, a senior research scientist at the Harvard School of Public Health wrote an article in support of the pope. He cited a study conducted by 10 experts that showed that “consistent condom use had not reached a sufficiently high level, even after many years of widespread and often aggressive promotion, to produce measureable slowing of new infections in the generalized epidemics of Sub-Saharan Africa.” One reason for the lack of improvement in the spread of AIDS, Green continues, is “risk compensation.” Risk compensation is “when people think they’re made safe by using condoms at least some of the time, they actually engage in riskier sex.” A second factor is that people rarely use condoms in steady relationships because this would imply a lack of trust. Studies show that the spread of AIDS is more prevalent in steady relationships than in high-risk groups. Moreover, those involved in steady relationships generally have two or more sex partners who overlap in time, creating a giant, invisible web of relationships through which HIV/AIDS spreads. In short, condom use is ineffective precisely because of the banalization of sexuality.
The pope’s suggestion that condom use by male prostitutes may be the first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility in the area of sexuality, is not a matter of tolerating a lesser evil. Any evil, even a “lesser evil,” can never be licitly willed. Prostitution and fornication are evils that should be shunned. Condom use does not lessen their evil and may, as Green suggested, contribute to the ongoing banalization of sexuality. But condom use may be the beginning of assuming responsibility for one’s sexual behavior. This beginning may, in turn, grow into a humanization of sexuality.
