Re: Pope's Comments on Condoms

Amigos,

I received an email today from someone in the youth group: “Brother, I'm very confused about the condom thing that's all over. What's going on with that?” As others who follow the news may also have questions about this same issue, I thought it would be best to post this for the entire group. I'm sorry that the text is so long, but the Pope's words were carefully chosen and need a great deal of explaining.

Over the last couple of days, media outlets all over the world have been publishing articles about certain statements made in an interview with Pope Benedict XVI. The statements, according to many in the news media, represent a change in the Church's official stance against the use of condoms.

The Pope's statements were made in an interview with German journalist Peter Seewald for his upcoming book, Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times. As is usual, the secular media has taken a snippet of the Pope's actual words and interpreted them apart from their overall context.

So, what exactly did Pope Benedict XVI say? During the interview, Seewald asked the Holy Father whether it was, “madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms.” The Pope replied:

“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.”

The interviewer, Seewald, pressed the issue: “Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?”

The Pope answered, “She [the Church] 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.”

A lot of people have been confused by the Pope's carefully chosen words. Is he saying that, in certain cases, the use of condoms can be justified as morally good? I think not. A careful consideration of his words, in light of the Church's long teaching against the use of condoms, makes this clear.

Pope Benedict was asked about the use of condoms in a particular context, the AIDS epidemic in Africa. He was asked if it was not “madness” (unreasonable, illogical) to tell people not to use condoms when they are at a high risk of catchings AIDS. In this particular case, Seewald is asking, couldn't the use of condoms be seen as a good in order to prevent the spread of AIDS. Pope Benedict does not directly respond to this particular question, but instead looks at whether the use of condoms can ever be considered a morally good act. He replies that in the case of a male prostitute, the use of a condom could, “be a first step in the direction of a moralization.”

What does this mean? Is the Holy Father saying that, in the case of a male prostitute, the use of a condom could be considered good? There are two possible approaches to answering this question.

The first approach assumes that when the Pope referred to the use of a condom by a male prostitute, he was understanding it within the context of a male to male sexual act, i.e. a homosexual act. The purpose of a condom is to prevent procreation (the fertilization of the woman's ova by the male's sperm). It is morally wrong because it closes the sexual act to new life. It separates the two goods of marriage: the unitive good (love of husband and wife) and the procreative good (children) which should never be separated. However, in the case of two males, procreation is never a possibility. One male cannot impregnate another male. As a result, the condom cannot achieve its purpose: contraception. No conception is ever possible!

The second approach assumes that the Holy Father could have been referring to the use of a condom by a male prostitute with a female partner. In this case, procreation (new life) would be possible. It is important to remember that the acts of human persons have a moral character. They are morally good or morally bad. In order to determine the moral character of an act, one must consider the end (why is it done), the means (how is it done), and the particular circumstances. For an act to be morally good, the end, the means, and the circumstances all have to be good. In the particular case of a male prostitute with HIV/AIDS, there is a very high likelihood that he will pass the disease on to anyone with whom he has sexual contact. If a male prostitute intends to have unprotected sexual intercourse with a woman who is not his wife, for the sake of money, knowing that he will likely give her AIDS, the act is morally evil. Why? Let us look at the end, means, and circumstanes:

End – money (neutral end)

Means – sex outside of marriage (bad means)

Circumstances – good chance of passing on a deadly disease (bad circumstances)

Conclusion – the act is certainly evil

In the above case, the male prostitute is using a female partner in the context of unprotected sexual intercourse, for the sake of money, and knows that she will likely get AIDS as a result. One could say that the male prostitute believes that, “everything is allowed and that [he can] do whatever [he] wants” (Pope Benedict XVI). The male prostitute is completely self-centered. He does not consider the harmful effects his actions will have for this woman. She is simply an object to be used. However, it could happen, as the Pope says, that the male prostitute can experience a conversion. His heart could be changed so that he realizes how harmful his actions could be for the woman with whom he has unprotected sex. His conscience could begin to awaken so that he feels guilt for completely disregarding her life by exposing her to the AIDS virus through unprotected sex. This first awakening of his conscience could be what the Pope calls, “A first step in the direction of a moralization (a new awareness of the moral law), a first assumption of responsibility (that one is responsible for the harm one does to others), on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants (human freedom is freedom for good not freedom from good).”

The Holy Father's words must be understood in this particular context. In the case of a the male prostitute who has a sudden awakening of conscience, he may choose to use a condom so as to seek to prevent the female partner from getting HIV/AIDS. This indicates, on the male prostitute's part, a new awareness of the goodness of the female and of the value of her life and health. Therefore, it is a step in the right direction. However, a step in the right direction does not mean that the act is morally good.

In the particular case of the male prostitute, he is still having sex outside of marriage (morally bad means), is still having sex for the sake of money (neutral end), and is still exposing his female partner to the risk of HIV/AIDS (condoms are not full proof) though to a lesser degree. Therefore, the moral act of the male prostitute is still morally evil. However, the fact that he now recognizes a certain responsibility for his actions constitutes a small step in the right direction.

The use of condoms is gravely evil. The Church's teaching on the matter has not changed. Let me conclude this reply by making a comparison of my own.

Consider the case of a hit-man for the mafia, Luca Brasi. Luca Brasi kills people at the orders of the Don. Luca Brasi is also sadistic and enjoys killing people slowly by means of torture over a long period of time. Luca Brasi receives money for the killing he does. Luca has killed many men in his hit-man career and his conscience does not trouble him in the least. One day, while walking past a Church, Luca hears the nuns singing Latin chants within. His heart is moved by the beautiful music and it stirs memories of his innocent childhood in Italy. He remember going to daily Mass with his devout mother and the high hopes she had for him. This experience profoundly effects Luca. A few days later Luca gets a call from the Don. Someone needs to be killed. Luca takes the job for the sake of the money. He drives to the specific location and kidnaps the man who is the target. However, rather than use a screwdriver or hammer to inflict a great deal of pain, Luca feels regret and even repugnance for the torture he once inflicted. Instead, he grabs his gun and shoots the man once in the head, killing him instantly. Luca has certainly not become a saint. Indeed, his actions are gravely evil. However, one could say that he has taken a small step in the right direction by recognizing the perverse nature of his methods of execution and adopting a more humane means. 

If you want clarification or have follow-up questions, please post them. 

God's peace,

Br. Joseph