« Dems in PA | Main | Me in CA »
April 23, 2006
We're just reporting
...what others are reporting. And we know how these things work, especially with translating European news sources. But here's the story:
The Vatican is expected to permit the use of condoms for AIDS patients, according to an interview with a high-ranking cardinal published Sunday.
The Vatican is currently working on a document on the subject that would be published soon, Vatican 'Health Minister' Javier Lozano Baragan said in an interview with the Italian daily La Repubblica.
The Roman Catholic Church has up till now strictly prohibited the use of condoms even in marriage for AIDS patients and HIV-infected people.
Observers in Rome suggest that a Curial cardinal such as Baragan could only make a statement on a such a sensitive theme when it had been first agreed upon with Pope Benedict XVI.
'It is a very difficult and delicate topic,' said Baragan, considered a close confidant of the pope. 'It was Benedict who demanded an examination of this special question of the use of condoms by AIDS patients.'
However the cardinal did not provide details on the Vatican's new rules
I find nothing posted at La Repubblica yet
Barragan is president of the Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers and former Bishop of Zacatecas, Mexico.
Update: I'm closing off the thread for now, for as I said, this story is based on an interview that's not online yet - I hate to have people spending a lot of time debating something that might turn out to be nothing. So when something new appears, come back here to discuss.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d834ba6e8169e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference We're just reporting:
Comments
If this is indeed the Pope's intent, then that is a shame, because I don't believe the Holy Spirit will allow such a thing to happen.
Posted by: seamole at Apr 23, 2006 10:26:53 AM
I'm trying to understand the reasoning here in a succinct and correct manner.
So, here goes.
Contraception is wrong because it frustrates the procreative dimension of the marital act.
However, in a situation where one spouse has contracted HIV, the unitive dimension has *already* been somewhat frustrated by the presence of HIV, because of the possibility of transmitting a life-threatening disease.
So, the principle of double effect comes into play. The condom, in that situation, is there not to prevent pregnancy but to protect against the disease, but has the side effect of preventing pregnancy. Is that how it would break down, double-effect wise?
I know that was sloppy but I wanted to post before heading off to Mass...
I'm not sure what I think about all of this. I do agree with Kevin Miller's statement over at American Papist that it was pastorally irresponsible to start talking about this before any official statement from Benedict himself.
I also don't see how this could possibly be stated as just applying in the case of HIV infection. It seems like this will open up a Pandora's box of "how serious do the symptoms of an STD have to be in order for condoms to be licit?" But, perhaps, as long as it is clarified that *pregnancy* is not to be treated as an STD, a consistent ethic that allows condom usage might be possible.
Posted by: ATP at Apr 23, 2006 10:50:58 AM
ATP:
Yes, I made this argument myself and then was convinced by other commenters (and Dr. William May) that the problem with condoms is not only contraceptive, but that they change the nature of the act. Use of the condom is an unnatural act and makes the sex act akin to masturbation--like anal or oral sex. This seems to be the reasoning of most orthodox theologians who have studied the matter.
But...if the Vatican says double effect applies, then I guess I change back again! Oh, well...
Posted by: Jeff at Apr 23, 2006 11:10:46 AM
Disturbing. In a marriage where one spouse is HIV-positive, would the Church --- in the interests of preserving some kind of marital sexuality --- approve of mutual masturbation?
And this would be different --- how?
Posted by: Juli Loesch Wiley at Apr 23, 2006 11:38:13 AM
Double-effect no more applies here than in any other case of deliberate ejaculatory sexual activity of a non-procreative type. Such acts are incapable of being marital acts. There is no way the Vatican can approve of such acts without at the same time undermining the whole basis for the Church's general teaching on sexual ethics (and Canon Law teaching concerning what is required of a sexual act in order to consummate a marriage). An ejaculatory act intrinscally incapable of consumating a marriage is necessarily a non-marital sexual act and is thus grave matter. This is a constant in Church teaching.
On top of this I know for a fact that there is oppostion in the CDF to any compromise of the type suggested by Barriagan, and that (the then) Cardinal Ratzinger's Letter on AIDS at least implies an opposition to the Barragan position.
I urge all readers of Amy's to speak out against those who would seek to undermine (often unwittinly) the consistency of the Church's traditional teaching in these areas.
Posted by: McCarthy at Apr 23, 2006 12:10:37 PM
McCarthy, I agree that we probably don't need to be worried about the news story on Barrigan:
http://www.americanpapist.com/2006/04/vatican-drafting-document-to-permit.html
Granted, we'll have to watch La Repubblica for the interview
Posted by: AmericanPapist at Apr 23, 2006 12:30:18 PM
I have to admit I was kind of shaken by reading this... I've been a little shaky in my faith lately, anyway, and a sudden approval of rubbing genitals together through rubber for pleasure and emotional support for AIDS victims only, after all that's been said and expected to be repeated to those who ask about contraception in "hard cases"... this is difficult to take. To the point that I simply have to hold on to the idea that this story must be mistaken.
Posted by: anon for now at Apr 23, 2006 12:31:16 PM
Why isn't abstinence an option in such cases? Are we married people so pathetically weak that we can't handle it? I'm not buying.
Posted by: MG at Apr 23, 2006 12:31:57 PM
I would like to offer a small portion of a post I wrote yesterday concerning this issue. If you want to see more of it, please visit my blog.
"I find it very disconcerting that some Church officials seem to view sexual intercourse as the raison d'etre of the married couple. I guess these men have not understood the Church's teaching properly on the subject of marriage. I cannot find any such document that would tell me that for a holy marriage, one must have sexual intercourse constantly throughout a marriage or otherwise the marriage is not holy. Sexual intercourse is but a very small fragment of the married life. Indeed, at times, it has a very diminished role in the life of any good marriage. Marriage is much more about sharing the love of Christ with your spouse. And that takes the form of many different things. Being kind and caring about your spouse, helping out with the household, rearing children together, being prayer-filled and holy for the good of your spouse and family, and the list goes on and on."
Posted by: James at Apr 23, 2006 12:57:26 PM
MG, don't you know? Humans are just animals and can't control themselves. Especially those colored ones in Africa and South America -- I mean, they really can't control themselves, now, can they?
Posted by: ambrosius at Apr 23, 2006 12:57:42 PM
Ambrosius,
I have to say, you are wrong in respect to animals. Atleast animals follow their instincts. When human persons debase themselves by following their passions and not using their reason and will in accordance with God's grace, these human persons become less than even the animals.
Posted by: James at Apr 23, 2006 1:00:58 PM
I had to post one more quote from my blog.
"No married couple with one spouse having HIV should ever have to choose evil. The right thing, the sacrifice, is to forgo sexual intercourse and take up a life of continence, for God. The couple should realize their place in the path to holiness and find new avenues of sharing their lives with each other. Giving up the conjugal act is not the end of marriage, but may be the new beginning of marriage for this couple. I mean, not to wander far off from what I want to say, but how did this spouse get infected in the first place? Was it through immoral activity? If so, then perpetuating more evil to occur within a marriage would be disasterous. Repentance, the sacraments, and prayer are needed more than anything. The conjugal act should be the last thing on this spouse's mind. Or did the infection occur through a blood transfusion or some other means not the fault of the individual? If so, what an unfortunate thing to have occurred. Many accidents occur to good people in life but that does not excuse them from the difficulties of the road to holiness. We all have our crosses and it is through God's grace that we can take them up and follow Christ in each day of our lives. "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" is not some ideal but can and should happen in our lives. It is not absolute perfection in this life but a perfection that shows our growth in charity towards that final day in which we will behold the face of God himself."
Posted by: James at Apr 23, 2006 1:03:02 PM
As I understood it, the theology of the body taught that artificial contraception interfered with the unitive purpose of sex because a partner was deliberately holding back something about himself or herself: the possibility of making a child together.
In this case, what one spouse is holding back is a virus that will result in the painful death of the other spouse. Isn't that relevant?
I really fail to see how trying to keep your wife from contracting AIDS interferes with the unitive aspect of sex, or how this question is morally distinguishable from the question of whether a woman can have a hysterectomy to treat cancer & continue to have sex afterwards.
Posted by: Katherine at Apr 23, 2006 1:12:16 PM
James,
Sarcasm was my weapon, sir.
Posted by: ambrosius at Apr 23, 2006 1:17:25 PM
I agree with James. In discussions of married people, condoms, and HIV, we always assume that it is morally legitimate for a spouse with HIV to engage in sex with an uninfected spouse. But how can a spouse who uses a condom ever justify even the very slight risk that might exist that he or she might transmit that disease to his or her spouse? AIDS, even in this day and age when many people have been able to control it with drugs (e.g. Magic Johnson or Andrew Sullivan), is still a deadly disease. Shouldn't the Church's blanket rule not be, if you have sex you can't use a condom but rather, if you have HIV, you shouldn't be having sex with your spouse?
Of course if you are going to go sleeping with your spouse regardless of the risk you pose to her, well, perhaps you should put a condom on but it seems you've already missed the meaning of marriage by wanting to put your spouse at risk.
Posted by: Will Barrett at Apr 23, 2006 1:18:41 PM
Ah, so easy for those who aren't in this situation to give moral advice. I'd like to hear from a couple, one of whom contracted HIV through blood transfusions, who is actually dealing with this situation. Are you calmly accepting a celibate life from this point on as your unfortunate cross or are you rejoicing that perhaps condoms could be used to protect the uninfected partner? Not everyone has the capacity to forgo all expressions of marital affection for 20 or 30 years and especially not when the procreative aspects of the marriage i.e. the woman is past menopause or has had a hysterectomy has ended.
Posted by: Anon at this point at Apr 23, 2006 1:20:19 PM
I think one would be cruel and heartless not to feel compassion for people who through no fault of their own contracts such a deadly virus. Would taking on continence be easy for a marriage? Of course, no sacrifice is easy. Otherwise it wouldn't be a sacrifice. But to change the nature of the marital act from one of self-gift (the nature of the conjugal act) to a marital act which denies the self-gift (with the usage of a condom in a conjugal act) has serious consequences for the holiness of the couple. In the end, the conjugal act is not a necessary component to live. It is a gift given to us by God as we partake as co-creators in this world. And sometimes this gift must be renounced for God. Yes, it would be a major sacrifice to someone who may enjoy this gift within marriage.
But everybody has crosses to bear in this life. We must ask God for his grace to help us each step of the way with whatever crosses we bear, no matter how difficulty and ow unfortunate they may be....these crosses are for our salvation.
Posted by: James at Apr 23, 2006 1:35:26 PM
Ambrosius,
I was aware of your sarcasm.
I felt the need to defend the animals and their dignity.
Posted by: James at Apr 23, 2006 1:36:25 PM
"I really fail to see how trying to keep your wife from contracting AIDS interferes with the unitive aspect of sex, or how this question is morally distinguishable from the question of whether a woman can have a hysterectomy to treat cancer & continue to have sex afterwards."
I really think Katherine has an important point here that shouldn't get buried. It strikes me as extremely relevant.
Posted by: Jimmy Huck at Apr 23, 2006 1:56:00 PM
Amy:
Wow, just wow.
If this is true, then I'm going to be seriously heartbroken. "anon for now" seems to sum up much of my feeling on the matter.
The "AIDS argument" - if accepted - can be used to destroy all of Humanae Vitae through about six logical steps. This means:
(a) The Holy See can promulgate contradictory teaching
(b) Therefore, the encyclicals, etc. of the Holy See are not infallible
(c) Therefore, the dogmatic declarations of the Ecumenical Councils are not necessarily true (cf Vatican I)
(d) Therefore, all of the teachings of the Church are collectively up for grabs
(e) Therefore, Jesus Christ has left us with nothing.
So Catholics have a few choices:
(1) Become a sedevacantist, Orthodox, Nestorian, etc. and hold onto the non-contradictory traditions/beliefs of those Churches to stay Christian and avoid being a hypocrite (by believing Vatican I)
(2) Believe that Christianity is an "open question" and sick with the "Anglicanesque" RCs (dismissing anything before Vatican II)
(3) Become an evangelical Christian - discarding the notions of Ecumenical Councils altogether and going "sola scriptura" - psychologically avoiding the matter of where the Bible came from and how it was constructed. (The "how 'cradle Catholics' become Christians" model)
(4) Say "I've been had" and forget this silly, inconsistent, self-contradictory "Christian religion" altogether. (The "post-high-school Catholic" model)
Am I missing anything here?
Posted by: Ian at Apr 23, 2006 2:13:14 PM
Jimmy, it is relavent, but it misses an important point.
Condomized sex is against the unitive aspect of marital intercourse because it is not a full gift of self: human beings are bodily creatures, as John Paul II explained, whose physical acts must be appropriate to their dignity as human persons.
In condomized sex, the man does not actually gives his semen to the woman - it is a lie, so to speak, saying "I'm not really giving ALL myself to you." Remembering that marriage is a symbol of the Church, it would be as if Jesus did not give all of himself to his people on the Cross (if this helps one understand the situation - otherwise ignore this example).
As william may and several other ethicists say, condomized sex is little different from mutual masturbation. The condom seperates man and wife in what should be a full union.
For the case of the hysterectomy, the man and woman are still giving themselves to each other (presuming they don't use a condom), but the act is rendered contraceptive externally. The man and wife know there is no abiltiy to be procreative, so they cannot act against it. In condomized sex one knows that one is frustrating the procreative ability of the act.
Perhaps others could supplement the point I'm trying to make?
Posted by: AmericanPapist at Apr 23, 2006 2:15:21 PM
Ian - I don't think it need be quite that drastic. both sides to this question admit it is still "open", and either side wouldn't necessarily "challenge" what has been infallibly taught regarding contraception.
what it would do, however, is provoke a major rethinking by many top scholars who thought they were "thinking with the mind of the Church" when they developed the principles that ruled out the use of a condom in all cases whatsoever.
Posted by: AmericanPapist at Apr 23, 2006 2:20:03 PM
I think everyone should hold off on being upset until there's something to be upset about, and you know what it is.
Posted by: Fr Martin Fox at Apr 23, 2006 2:26:06 PM
... I should even append that: "ruled out the use of a condom in all cases whatsoever."
it IS permissable for woman about to be raped to request the man who is raping her to wear a condom - because in rape there is NO unitive dimension to the act, you can't commit a sin against what is not there. the woman is not acting freely...
the same thing goes for homosexuals and heterosexual anal sex. these acts cannot sin against "unitive" and "procreative" meanings because there is no meaning there to sin against in the first place.
there are other qualifications that can be made... I just wanted to stymie whatever misunderstandings I could before they happened.
Posted by: AmericanPapist at Apr 23, 2006 2:26:25 PM
Jesus Christ left us with nothing?
That's a bit of a jump, isn't it? What about his teachings on love, compassion, unity with the Father, forgiveness, mercy and much more? Granted, such a decision would be problematic for Church teachings but that would hardly mean that Jesus Christ left us with nothing. And the Holy See has promulgated contradictory teaching. Lending at interest was soundly condemned by the Holy See at one point and now we have a Vatican bank. Is your faith in the person of Jesus or the institution of the Church? If an institution is problematic, it doesn't mean that Jesus left us with nothing. (And, yes I am Catholic.)
Posted by: Anon at this point at Apr 23, 2006 2:28:24 PM
