Posted on 05/03/2006 12:08:36 PM PDT by 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.
Sure.
So in just one year, there is a FORTY PERCENT CHANCE (.99^100) that the HIV+ person will expose their spouse to AIDS. And that's with 99% effectiveness for the condom, there is a 99.99% chance that the spouse will become exposed to AIDS.
First is the difference between being exposed and being infected. HIV (fortunately for the spouses involved) is not as infective as some viruses, such as hepatitis B. Exposure doesn't always result in transmission even with Hep B, and transmission is much less with AIDS. On a quick search, I found this abstract from the well-regarded Cochrane database comparing those who said they "always used condoms" and those who "never used condoms":
"There were 13 cohorts of "always" users that yielded an homogeneous HIV incidence estimate of 1.14 [95% C.I.:.56, 2.04] per 100 person-years. There were 10 cohorts of "never" users that appeared to be heterogeneous. The studies with the longest follow-up time, consisting mainly of studies of partners of hemophiliac and transfusion patients, yielded an HIV incidence estimate of 5.75 [95% C.I.: 3.16, 9.66] per 100 person-years." (emphasis added).
Because, "I'm a doctor" won't do.
I suggest you take a refresher course on what God teaches us about humility. You might consider foregoing your "preaching" as part of the course.
Your comments were pompous, arrogant and self-righteous. Shame on you!
Aside from statistics and the "lesser of two evils" theologians may be contemplating, what sensible person would risk having sex with a spouse who has AIDS or is HIV positive? For me, it is just that simple.
>> If the choice is between using a condom or abstaining, the latter is the safest choice. On the other hand, if the choice is between using a condom or not using a condom, the former is the safest choice. <<
actually, that's the point: read post #32: there is no significant difference between wearing a condom or not, when having sex monogamously with regular marital frequency (well, if things are going well). .99^500=~0.
OOPS, I mean post 31
Some women have no choice.
There. I made the necessary correction.
actually, that's the point: read post #32: there is no significant difference between wearing a condom or not, when having sex monogamously with regular marital frequency (well, if things are going well). .99^500=~0.
Studies have found a difference. I think you are equating exposure with infection, which isn't what happens. Check out the source linked from post #41. To add another statistic, this study from rural Uganda of couples with either wife or husband infected, and no mention of condom use, has infection rates of 11.6 to 16 per 100 person years. Compare that to the "always use condoms" group in my previous post, with a rate of 1.14 per 100 person years.
If the choice is between using a condom or abstaining, the latter is the safest choice. On the other hand, if the choice is between using a condom or not using a condom, the former is the safest choice.
I don't disagree with your statement.
Of course, in the second instance we are playing the percentages. The medical profession does that all the time. They will recommend a course of treatment based on the probability of success. The greatest good for the population as a whole, knowing that some individuals will fall outside of the group that has successful results.
If the Vatican is looking at it from a different perspective of morals and ethics, I am guessing they would say for the indivdual who happens to be statistically unlucky and has the device fail on the first incident of use, in practical terms the device did not offer any protection. They are infected with a potentially fatal disease. For that individual, there is no "lesser evil". It appeared to be an alternative, in fact, it wasn't.
And, given enough incidents of use, the device will eventually fail for all individual users. From the moral/ethical perspective, I doubt the Vatican is going to say 'pretty close' to 100% protection is good enough and the devil take the hindmost.
Although not a recommended hobby, if one insists on playing "Russian Roulette" chances of survival are dramatically increased if one uses a revolver rather than an automatic.
If one spins the barrel often enough the end result is the same. The gun goes boom. Result delayed, not prevented.
For the statistically unlucky individual, there is no delay and the revolver is the same as the automatic.
>> Some women have no choice. <<
Rapists use condoms because the Vatican told them it was a sin not to???
No, I am not mixing exposure with infection. I plainly spoke only of exposure, since that is the only factor we know condom use can effect. However, I will note that I did mention one factor which causes monogamy to promote contracting the virus, and did leave out a very important factor which make promiscuity lead to catching the virus more easily: co-inciding infections. The presence of many sexually transmitted diseases make transmission of the virus into the bloodstream much easier, such as open Herpes sores. And other sexually transmitted diseases make HIV transmission more likely to result in symptomatic AIDS, presumably by impairing the immune system.
However, that does cast a different light on the statistics. I agree that at some point in a long monogamous relationship the non HIV partner will be exposed, but given that infectivity isn't that high, (estimated between 0.005 and 0.009 for male-to-female transmission, and 0.003 and 0.001 for female-to-male transmission for a single instance of unprotected intercourse) cutting down the number of exposures makes a big difference. Which means that a condom, properly used, can prevent infection for a significant number of people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.