Vatican Re-Examines Ban on Contraception

AP ^ | May 3, 2006 | Brian Murphy

[siunevada]

By BRIAN MURPHY, AP Religion Writer 23 minutes ago

A Vatican study on whether it could permit condoms to battle AIDS has a very narrow scope: married Roman Catholic couples in which one partner has the virus. But its theological underpinnings are centuries old, and could lay the groundwork for an end to the church's blanket ban on contraception.

The principle of "double effect" entered mainstream Catholic debate more than 300 years ago and draws on questions about the "lesser of two evils" raised by theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. The concepts broadly ask: Can a questionable act be morally justified when the good effect outweighs a bad consequence?

Answering the question with an empathic "yes" are scholars, health professionals and others who want a change in the Vatican's stance that abstinence is the only acceptable way to prevent the spread of AIDS. They have argued for years that condom use as a defense against HIV infection, under specific circumstances, does not contradict the Catholic ban on artificial birth control.

Some groups, including the Southern Africa Catholic Bishops Conference, have even given a tacit nod to condoms for married couples with one partner infected. The Vatican — however tentatively — now could be moving to formally recognize that position.

"It's a reality that's finally moving into a wider arena," said Sister Alison Munro, coordinator of the AIDS project for the Southern African Bishops Conference.

There's no chance the Vatican would fundamentally revise its opposition to contraception, which has been reaffirmed and reinforced since the famous 1968 encyclical "Humanae Vitae." But even the targeted discussions under way are further evidence of Pope Benedict XVI shedding the tradition-bound reputation he earned during more than two decades as the chief doctrinal watchdog for his predecessor, John Paul II.

Benedict, a widely respected theologian, has shown a willingness to re-examine church attitudes toward advances in genetic engineering and in-vitro fertilization. But none approach the sensitivity of whether to open the door — even a crack — for condoms.

"The Vatican is like a submarine. On this one, it has put up its periscope, looked around and submerged again," said the Rev. James Keenan, a moral theologian at Boston College. "It's still not clear at all what — if anything — the Vatican will eventually say on the subject."

Helen Hull Hitchcock of Women for Faith & Family, a traditionalist group based in St. Louis, predicted it could be "deeply confusing" for Catholics if the church made any concessions.

"People would say, `Now wait a minute. If it's OK for this couple to use it, why can't another couple use it,'" Hitchcock said. "We think that it would be very worrisome."

Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, who heads the Vatican's office for health care, would only confirm a "dialogue" is under way as part of a larger examination of bioethical issues. The study on condoms only concerns married couples in which one partner has the virus, his office said.

Notably, there have been no official announcements of an upcoming document or details of the discussions. But a possible signal came last month from retired Milan Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, who was quoted by the Italian newsweekly L'Espresso as saying condoms were the "lesser evil" in combatting AIDS.

Martini, once considered a top papal contender, was not the first Catholic leader to make this connection. The timing, however, was widely interpreted as a hint of the Vatican's leanings.

"Martini was not reprimanded or asked to correct himself," said the Rev. Michael Fahey, a professor of theology at Marquette University. "This seems to say that the Vatican is moving in this direction or at least wants to send a trial balloon."

If the Vatican allows condoms as an AIDS control measure within a marriage, it would open the way for Catholic groups to take a more direct role in anti-AIDS campaigns in ravaged places such as Africa, where the virus is often transmitted from husbands to wives. Catholic charities in Africa offer health care and many other services to AIDS sufferers, but come under sustained criticism for their refusal to distribute condoms.

Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for more than 60 percent of the 40 million people infected with HIV worldwide.

In 2001, more than 30 bishops from southern Africa denounced the use of condoms, but noted that married couples should "listen to their consciences" — widely viewed as recognition the "lesser of two evils" scenario.

The Vatican initially came down hard on such rationales. But it gradually retreated as influential theologians and clergymen made the case that condom use — in cases such as between an HIV-infected person and spouse — would fall under the "double effect" rubric, which says a good intent (not passing the virus) has a bad consequence (using the condom).

The principle is often used to rationalize causalities in a "just war" or a procedure to end a pregnancy to save the woman's life.

The related "lesser of two evils" views boil down to moral damage control. A priest should always advise against doing "evil," but encourage a "lesser evil" if they can't stop the act.

In 2000, Monsignor Jacques Suaudeau of the Pontifical Council for the Family wrote an article in the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, strongly supporting sexual abstinence to control AIDS, but noting specific cases where condom use could be considered a "lesser evil" — including prostitutes in legal brothels.

The idea since has been echoed by even more powerful figures. Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels has said an HIV-positive person would be committing a sin by having sex without a condom.

"Let's hope the Vatican brings some clarity to this issue," said theologian Keenan. "It would finally take the stigma off the condom. Then it's all over. The condom will be freed of this whole, heavy moral debate."

___

Religion reporter Rachel Zoll in New York contributed to this report.

Summary: Condoms, AIDS, and the Vatican By The Associated Press 30 minutes ago

WHAT WILL THE VATICAN SAY? It's unclear when — or even if — the Vatican will issue any statement on condom use in the specific circumstance of a married couple with one partner who is HIV-positive.

WHY THE UNCERTAINTY? The Vatican is not under any obligation to make a formal statement on the issue. Many studies are conducted within the Vatican departments, from scientific issues to theological points, that are never included in public documents.

DOES THE POPE TAKE PART? Pope Benedict XVI is regularly informed about work in Vatican departments, but doesn't necessarily become an active participant with ongoing studies.

[siunevada]

I think they will not be able to get past the problem of the failure rate for condoms. It then becomes a matter of delaying infection, or perhaps not if you are unlucky and your first condom fails. Prevention isn't really in the cards.

Lots of wishful thinking. I wouldn't expect any pronouncement of major changes out of the Vatican.

[last american]

A Vatican study on whether it could permit condoms to battle AIDS has a very narrow scope: married Roman Catholic couples in which one partner has the virus.

And how pray tell short of the 0.0000001% that get aids from transfusions do all of these "catholics" get aids?

This is CLEARLY pandering to certain continents/countries where it is considered normal for a married man to visit a hooker while wifey is swinging the mortar to make corn meal... Absolutely pathetic.

[markomalley]

ping.

I haven't heard about a cold wave in hell recently, have you?

[Nihil Obstat]

They spelled "Re-Affirms" wrong in the title.

[Salvation]

 

 

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

---

 

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

[retMD]

Even if they're not perfect, correctly and consistently using condoms will decrease the risk of getting AIDs. From a public health perspective, this would be a good thing to reduce transmission rates in Africa.

[Tax-chick]

Nope.

[siunevada]

Even if they're not perfect, correctly and consistently using condoms will decrease the risk of getting AIDs.

I take it from your screen name you've got some scientific perspective on this question. Is it correct to say that even with correct and consistent use the device itself will have a certain level of failure?

If the answer is affirmative, then that will be the insurmountable hurdle for any examination from the ethical perspective of the Church. There will be, in fact, no "lesser evil" to consider. Only the greater evil of transmission of a potentially fatal disease delayed. (Unless you have the statistical bad luck to have your first use be a failure. Then there will be no delay.)

[annalex]

There is a way to reduce the rate of AIDS transmission to virtual zero: abstinence outside of marriage. This is what the Church teaches. Any sideline allowing condoms where abstinence is the moral answer would be a moral wrong and the Church is not going to teach that.

Now, inlike fornication, sex inside a marriage is good. This is why it is proper for the Church to examine the use of condoms in this narrow case, where sex itself would have been salutary but for the AIDS infection of one spouse. Whichever way the Church goes in that narrow case is not going to have any implication to the broad condemnation of contraception in any other case, even for the purposes of AIDS prevention.

[retMD]

I take it from your screen name you've got some scientific perspective on this question. Is it correct to say that even with correct and consistent use the device itself will have a certain level of failure?

The answer to your question is yes; no barrier is 100% foolproof, and people won't always use it correctly.

I'm on the medical perspective end of this, and lacking on the theology end. I don't really understand how any degree of failure makes an insurmountable hurdle - but I welcome the education.

[RobbyS]

A condom is a birth control devise, not a sufficent barrier against AIDS. The crux of the matter is sexual practices. If the guy can commit to having sex with one woman it probably would have more effect than using condoms.

[Flavius Josephus]

MArried couple or not, a woman would have to be INSANE to place only a few microns of cheap rubber between herself and the HIV virus. This is a Trojan horse argument.

[Flavius Josephus]

(we come from the land of the ice and snow...)

[annalex]

condom is a birth control devise, not a sufficent barrier against AIDS

We keep forgetting that. The issue in the case of marital act when one spouse is infected is using the condom in its secondary purpose, as a barrier for viruses. I wonder if the Church would not encourage the development of a non-contraceptive condom, that only prevents the infection. I do not see why such a device would be morally questionable between spouses, as it becomes merely a medical device.

[Flavius Josephus]

If you're only looking at it from a medical perspective, you probably don't take abstinence seriously as a preventive measure. Therefore, it's doubtful that you're open to being educated on anything. Few MDs are. But we don't have a particularly high regard for "experts" around here. If you have an argument to make, please post statistics and sources. Because, "I'm a doctor" won't do.

[Flavius Josephus]

It's a lousy b/c device too.

[verity]

"I think they will not be able to get past the problem of the failure rate for condoms"

Are you not implying that the failure rate is not 100%?

[RobbyS]

Maybe if we are dealing with a hypothetical question, but the practical effect is (1) it will be more effective as a BC devise than as a barrier and (2) The average Joe will make no such distinction. It will be the annulment question all over again, the same kind of Jesuitical sophistry that Pascal exposed so well.

[annalex]

Yes. Something like this happened before, I believe, in Spain: a Catholic cleric, when pressed about the two evils of protected and unprotected fornication admitted that yes, of the two evils protected fornication is a lesser evil. The headlines were, of course, "Vatican Approves Contraception".

Plus, I doubt a non-contraceptive condom that is even marginally useful in preventing AIDS is possible. But this is the only corner case that I think makes sense theologically.