Cardinal favours condoms to stop AIDS (leading candidates to succeed Pope John Paul)

The Guardian via SMH ^ | January 14, 2004 | John Hooper in Rome and Andrew Osborn in Brussels

[sitetest]

Dear johnb2004,

"If the case was as you say she should get out of that situation. Forced sex is rape."

It's only within the past few decades that the case of a husband forcing himself on his wife has been recognized as rape in this country. There are parts of the world where a woman is unable to successfully make that claim against her husband. Furthermore, in these places, many women will find themselves unable to readily escape their circumstances.

So let's get blunt. If a woman is about to be forcibly raped by a complete stranger, does she sin if the rapist offers to use a condom and she agrees?

I don't believe that one can say that the condom is violating the nature of the "marital act", as there is no marriage to give the act context.


sitetest

[johnb2004]

I doubt any "man" that is going to rape any woman, married or not, is going to be moved to place a condom on. This is becoming arcane.

[johnb2004]

How about this example? I do not know if it is analogous, but it came to me. What if a man held a gun to your head and told you to kill your wife or he would kill you. You kill her. Did you commit a sin?

[sitetest]

Dear johnb2004,

"I doubt any 'man' that is going to rape any woman, married or not, is going to be moved to place a condom on. This is becoming arcane."

I have asked a hypothetical, it isn't necessary that it be likely.

Regrettably, though, it isn't all that "arcane" at all. To protect themselves from identification via DNA, some rapists use condoms. I have read of cases, as well, of women persuading their rapists to wear a condom.

Does the woman sin?

Some stranger-on-stranger rapists are overtly quite violent, but others who would like to delude themselves that their victims "desire" the act, and thus will be somewhat accommodating in their crime. We had a case of that a few years ago near where I live. The serial rapist tried, in his own perverted way, to be very solicitous of his victims, even to the point of phoning them afterwards to "chat". He wanted to talk about his "relationship" with the victims, and where it might head.

Don't underestimate how foul people can be.


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear johnb2004,

"How about this example? I do not know if it is analogous, but it came to me. What if a man held a gun to your head and told you to kill your wife or he would kill you. You kill her. Did you commit a sin?"

Keeping it simple, assuming there were no options to fight back or counterattack, no, I don't believe so, at least not mortally. When one is coerced to the point of death, one is not generally culpable of mortal sin.

But frankly, I'd rather die than see my wife die.


sitetest

[johnb2004]

Your question about asking the attacker to wear a condom is perplexing. I will wait to see what others say. I have read that if a woman is raped and conception has not occurred, then she may take steps to repel the sperm as an aggressor.

[sitetest]

Dear johnb2004,

The question may be perplexing. Actually, it perplexes me, too. Note that I haven't given an opinion on whether or not these hypothetical acts are moral or not. I've been presenting them as questions, too.

But the first question that must be asked is whether it would be immoral to ask one's rapist to wear a condom.

Whaddaya think?


sitetest

[ninenot]

Seems as though Slat has nailed the case, albeit his conclusion is a VERY difficult one to accept.

There are two factors which have not been cited here. First, the "AIDS" rate in Africa is suspect--I have pinged CatholicFamily on this--I recall reading in the last few years that much of the testing done in Africa was suspect and there was a fair amount of propaganda circulated, mostly to win additional dollars (successful: GWB is spending an enormous amount on this.)

Secondly, there is a presumption, faint, but present, that African men are beasts, which is just a bit odiferous. I claim no knowledge of this, but I am puzzled that 'Western man' is so significantly superior in virtue to 'African man.'

[sitetest]

Dear ninenot,

"Secondly, there is a presumption, faint, but present, that African men are beasts, which is just a bit odiferous. I claim no knowledge of this, but I am puzzled that 'Western man' is so significantly superior in virtue to 'African man.'"

I don't think "Western men" are superior, but in many ways, Western (or at least developed, First World) societies are superior. In many ways, these societies are more aware of human rights, of the rights of the individual to be free from violation of the person; Western societies often offer better protection via the rule of law.

But just think back not too long ago. Even in our country, it isn't too long ago that the idea of marital rape was considered an oxymoron by many, if not most.


sitetest

[johnb2004]

there is a presumption, faint, but present, that African men are beasts, which is just a bit odiferous. I claim no knowledge of this, but I am puzzled that 'Western man' is so significantly superior in virtue to 'African man.'

Good insight. Wish I had made it.

What do you say about a woman asking her attacker to wear a condom?

[lrslattery]

I stated in a previous post that there has been been some discussion by theologians on whether it is, in fact, permissable, to use a condom in the case of attempted or foreseen rape. I know of 3 moral theologians who are saying 'yes' to this.

You may recall a story some time back about some nuns in Africa being subjected to the possibility of rape. If I recall correctly, one of the theologians discussing the issue was Germain Grisez.

Now while he and others are proposing some sort of exception for the use of condoms in these types of cases, there has yet to be a definitive magisterial statement supporting this 'proposal'.

I do not readily recall the names of the other theologians, but I can provide that later this evening, if anyone is interested, with a followup on a clearer explanation of the issue.

[Antoninus]

Just for the record, I'd like to add the following statements from Cardinal Danneels with regard to homosexuality. They are quoted from an Alice von Hildebrand article in New Oxford Review which may be found here.

When he became Primate of Belgium in 1983, Godfried Cardinal Danneels opened, for the benefit of homosexuals, the Center of Welcome for One and All at the Catholic University of Louvain. When asked by a group of young people what he thought about homosexuality, Cardinal Danneels answered: "The question is not what one thinks about it; it is simply a fact. To be homosexual is a natural disposition, just as being heterosexual. One chooses neither one nor the other. The question is rather: 'What do I do with it?' I know excellent priests who are homosexuals; I also know excellent priests who are heterosexuals. Celibates are not 'nothing' — that is, 'neuter.' We are always one or the other. But it cannot be denied that homosexuals are deprived of certain dimensions of existence: the distinction between man and woman, between parents and children. This clearly distinguishes them from heterosexuals. But this is no reason for excluding them…."

When asked whether he thought that a child adopted and raised by homosexuals would be less happy than one raised by heterosexuals, Cardinal Danneels responded: "A heterosexual marriage is richer because it can procreate its own children. [But] a lesbian couple can have children, thanks to artificial insemination, though this is a technical act. Psychologists will tell us whether this can create a problem…."

Does this sound like a Catholic bishop to anyone here? Is it any wonder why he's so fixated on getting around Humanae Vitae?

[johnb2004]

I really wonder how many of these guys have more than an "academic" interest in all this stuff?

[lrslattery]

This is an article from Dr. Arthur Hippler, who works for Bishop Burke in the Diocese of LaCrosse. Perhaps, it will help.

Condoms and AIDS: The African Experience

Last summer, President George Bush's tour of several African countries brought renewed attention to the epidemic of HIV/AIDS on that continent, and success of various strategies for preventing its spread. The conventional wisdom has touted condoms as chief means of prevention, scorning abstinence as "unrealistic." In fact, it is the assertion that widespread condom distribution prevents HIV/AIDS that has no basis in reality.

The use of condoms as the chief means to prevent HIV infection presupposes that the disease is spread mostly by sexual contact. A recent study however published by Tubingen University in "The Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases and AIDS" explained that transmission in medical settings, such as through dirty needles, is the primary cause of HIV infection. According to another study published in the same journal, David Gisselquist and John Poterrat estimate that less than one third of HIV infections are from sexual activity

They point to the fact that countries such as Zimbabwe have the best access to medical care and the highest rates of HIV transmission. Indeed, 40% of the infants with HIV had mothers who tested negative. As the study notes, "these children averaged 44 injections in their lifetime, compared with only 23 for the uninfected children." It is hard to link sexual contact with increased HIV infection in Zimbabwe, since STD's in general have declined 25 percent over the last ten years. Similarly, in South Africa, high rates of HIV "have paralleled aggressive efforts to deliver health care to rural populations.

Condoms are certainly no solution for a shortage of medical supplies and unsanitary conditions. But are condoms a solution for sexual transmission? During his visit of Uganda, President Bush praised that country's "journey out of the scourge of AIDS," and called Uganda's unique record a successful example for fighting the pandemic. Uganda has cut its infection rate by 50 percent since 1992, largely through promoting abstinence and monogamy

By contrast, HIV is on the rise in South Africa, up to 15.6 % for those aged 15 to 49. South Africa has promoted condoms heavily, a program which the Southern African Catholic Bishops Conference strongly condemned. They declared recently "Condoms may even be one of the main reasons for the spread of HIV-AIDS." Indeed, "[T]he Bishops regard the widespread and indiscriminate promotion of condoms as an immoral and misguided weapon in our battle against HIV-AIDS." Following the example of Uganda, the bishops proposed abstinence and fidelity in marriage as the solution to HIV infection

South Africa is not alone. U.N. figures show Botswana has the world's highest adult infection rate with 38.8%, another country that has promoted condoms heavily. Nor should this be surprising. In a 2001 report from the National Institutes of Health, entitled "Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention," the study found condoms to be ineffective 15% of the time for preventing HIV infection. The United Nations AIDS agency (UNAIDS) recently published a study in which they admitted that condoms were infective against HIV infection 10% of the time. Considering the fatal nature of the disease, neither statistic is impressive for prevention

We have to consider the possibility that preventing HIV infection in the African continent demands far more than dumping condoms on its peoples. Condoms are a relatively cheap and easy "solution." It is much harder to address the shortcomings of medical care and supplies in countries such Zimbabwe and South Africa. And at the present time at least, it is counter cultural for First World countries to promote abstinence and marital fidelity. But what appears to be the easy solution is no solution at all

Arthur Hippler is director of the diocesan Office of Justice and Peace.

[ninenot]

See # 311. I have a daughter who was raped and this is a little too close to the bone for rational discussion on my part.

But I HAVE cleaned my 9mm. CA Fam Assoc aside, the 9mm is just fine for the purposes.

[johnb2004]

but how does this fit into some people's idea for amchurch?

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Great article!

Uganda has cut its infection rate by 50 percent since 1992, largely through promoting abstinence and monogamy By contrast, HIV is on the rise in South Africa, up to 15.6 % for those aged 15 to 49. South Africa has promoted condoms heavily

[Antoninus]

To put Cardinal Danneel's statements about condoms in a wider context, here's what he's had to say about homosexuality:

When asked by a group of young people what he thought about homosexuality, Cardinal Danneels answered: "The question is not what one thinks about it; it is simply a fact. To be homosexual is a natural disposition, just as being heterosexual. One chooses neither one nor the other. The question is rather: 'What do I do with it?' I know excellent priests who are homosexuals; I also know excellent priests who are heterosexuals. Celibates are not 'nothing' — that is, 'neuter.' We are always one or the other. But it cannot be denied that homosexuals are deprived of certain dimensions of existence: the distinction between man and woman, between parents and children. This clearly distinguishes them from heterosexuals. But this is no reason for excluding them…."

When asked whether he thought that a child adopted and raised by homosexuals would be less happy than one raised by heterosexuals, Cardinal Danneels responded: "A heterosexual marriage is richer because it can procreate its own children. [But] a lesbian couple can have children, thanks to artificial insemination, though this is a technical act. Psychologists will tell us whether this can create a problem…."

[heyheyhey]

A Pope is the head dude in charge of the Roman Catholic Church.

I’m truly impressed with your knowledge of Catholicism!
Sorry to underestimate you a little bit :)

[Antoninus]

The solution is clear: We need to advocate putting condoms on the dirty needles.