Why the Philippines doesn't need condoms

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith publishes the official interpretation of the Pope's remarks on condoms

From the Vatican website:

Note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

On the trivilization of sexuality

Regarding certain interpretations of "Light of the World"

Following the publication of the interview-book Light of the World by Benedict XVI, a number of erroneous interpretations have emerged which have caused confusion concerning the position of the Catholic Church regarding certain questions of sexual morality. The thought of the Pope has been repeatedly manipulated for ends and interests which are entirely foreign to the meaning of his words – a meaning which is evident to anyone who reads the entire chapters in which human sexuality is treated. The intention of the Holy Father is clear: to rediscover the beauty of the divine gift of human sexuality and, in this way, to avoid the cheapening of sexuality which is common today.

Some interpretations have presented the words of the Pope as a contradiction of the traditional moral teaching of the Church. This hypothesis has been welcomed by some as a positive change and lamented by others as a cause of concern – as if his statements represented a break with the doctrine concerning contraception and with the Church’s stance in the fight against AIDS. In reality, the words of the Pope – which specifically concern a gravely disordered type of human behaviour, namely prostitution (cf. Light of the World, pp. 117-119) – do not signify a change in Catholic moral teaching or in the pastoral practice of the Church.

As is clear from an attentive reading of the pages in question, the Holy Father was talking neither about conjugal morality nor about the moral norm concerning contraception. This norm belongs to the tradition of the Church and was summarized succinctly by Pope Paul VI in paragraph 14 of his Encyclical Letter Humanae vitae, when he wrote that "also to be excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means." The idea that anyone could deduce from the words of Benedict XVI that it is somehow legitimate, in certain situations, to use condoms to avoid an unwanted pregnancy is completely arbitrary and is in no way justified either by his words or in his thought. On this issue the Pope proposes instead – and also calls the pastors of the Church to propose more often and more effectively (cf. Light of the World, p. 147) – humanly and ethically acceptable ways of behaving which respect the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meaning of every conjugal act, through the possible use of natural family planning in view of responsible procreation.

On the pages in question, the Holy Father refers to the completely different case of prostitution, a type of behaviour which Christian morality has always considered gravely immoral (cf. Vatican II, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, n. 27; Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2355). The response of the entire Christian tradition – and indeed not only of the Christian tradition – to the practice of prostitution can be summed up in the words of St. Paul: "Flee from fornication" (1 Cor 6:18). The practice of prostitution should be shunned, and it is the duty of the agencies of the Church, of civil society and of the State to do all they can to liberate those involved from this practice.

In this regard, it must be noted that the situation created by the spread of AIDS in many areas of the world has made the problem of prostitution even more serious. Those who know themselves to be infected with HIV and who therefore run the risk of infecting others, apart from committing a sin against the sixth commandment are also committing a sin against the fifth commandment – because they are consciously putting the lives of others at risk through behaviour which has repercussions on public health. In this situation, the Holy Father clearly affirms that the provision of condoms does not constitute "the real or moral solution" to the problem of AIDS and also that "the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality" in that it refuses to address the mistaken human behaviour which is the root cause of the spread of the virus. In this context, however, it cannot be denied that anyone who uses a condom in order to diminish the risk posed to another person is intending to reduce the evil connected with his or her immoral activity. In this sense the Holy Father points out that the use of a condom "with the intention of reducing the risk of infection, can be a first step in a movement towards a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality." This affirmation is clearly compatible with the Holy Father’s previous statement that this is "not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection."

Some commentators have interpreted the words of Benedict XVI according to the so-called theory of the "lesser evil". This theory is, however, susceptible to proportionalistic misinterpretation (cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis splendor, n. 75-77). An action which is objectively evil, even if a lesser evil, can never be licitly willed. The Holy Father did not say – as some people have claimed – that prostitution with the use of a condom can be chosen as a lesser evil. The Church teaches that prostitution is immoral and should be shunned. However, those involved in prostitution who are HIV positive and who seek to diminish the risk of contagion by the use of a condom may be taking the first step in respecting the life of another – even if the evil of prostitution remains in all its gravity. This understanding is in full conformity with the moral theological tradition of the Church.

In conclusion, in the battle against AIDS, the Catholic faithful and the agencies of the Catholic Church should be close to those affected, should care for the sick and should encourage all people to live abstinence before and fidelity within marriage. In this regard it is also important to condemn any behaviour which cheapens sexuality because, as the Pope says, such behaviour is the reason why so many people no longer see in sexuality an expression of their love: "This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being" (Light of the World, p. 119).

Snappy replies to condomic arguments

Legal and business expert and columnist Jemy Gatdula has published two parts of his series "Snappy replies to condomic arguments" on Business World as well as on his own blog:

Part 1

Part 2

The most authoritative clarifications (so far) of the Pope's words on condoms

I hope to be able to compile by Saturday a comprehensive set of links to the best orthodox Catholic commentaries and clarifications on the Pope's words on condoms. In the meantime, I would like to call everyone's attention to the following interview with Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, and therefore the Church's highest-ranking legal officer after the Pope himself. He is sometimes referred to as the "Chief Justice of the Catholic Church".

Cardinal Burke: What the Pope Really Meant

For those looking for something more succinct, LifeSite News has published a short explanation by Bishop Anthony Fisher OP that has been approved by the Archbishop of Sydney, George Cardinal Pell:

Australian bishop explains Pope condom flap

I am not including Fr. Federico Lombardi's statements of clarification in this post, despite his being the Pope's official spokesman, because these statements are currently causing even more controversy, and have already been challenged as inaccurately conveying the Pope's actual thinking.

The Truth about the Pope on Condoms

I received the following via email. It is an essay written by Fr. Joel Jason of the Family and Life Ministry of the Archdiocese of Manila. To make this article more readable I've put the quote from the Pope's newest book in italics.

(Addendum 11/25/10): A slightly modified version of this essay has now been published on the website of the Archdiocese of Manila as Pope Benedict and the Condom Question.)

The Truth about the Pope on Condoms

Fr. Joel Jason

(In response to many questions I received regarding the days headline connected with Pope Benedict and the condom question, I offer the following as clarifying points to ponder on. Please post it on your profile and share with as many friends you can. For our collective guidance. Thanks!)

It was Sunday night (November 21, 2010) and I was readying myself to sleep. I turned on the TV to while away the time. Half asleep and half awake, I remember vaguely seeing in the running headlines at CNN, something connected with Pope Benedict and the issue of condoms. Too sleepy to even listen in, I switched off the television and went to sleep. Monday morning I woke up with text messages from friends inquiring about the supposed "turn around" in the Church's teaching regarding condom use.

True enough, international as well as local journal headlines read:

"Pope says condoms are justified in fight against HIV"

"Pope says condoms are acceptable in some cases"

"Pope softens on teaching on Condoms, Aids and Contraception"

"Pope: Condom use OK for fight against AIDs"

So for the sake of intellectual integrity, I decided to do some research and found out that what started it all was a supposed "leaked" German interview the Pope granted to journalist Peter Seewald in an upcoming book yet to be released entitled "Light of the World: The Pope, The Church and the Signs of the Times". To let you in on what the Pope really said, allow me to show you an excerpt of the transcript of the interview connected with the condom question:

From Chapter 11, "The Journeys of a Shepherd," pages 117-119:

Peter Seewald:

On the occasion of your trip to Africa in March 2009, the Vatican's policy on AIDs once again became the target of media criticism. Twenty-five percent of all AIDs victims around the world today are treated in Catholic facilities. In some countries, such as Lesotho, for example, the statistic is 40 percent. In Africa you stated that the Church's traditional teaching has proven to be the only sure way to stop the spread of HIV. Critics, including critics from the Church's own ranks, object that it is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms.

Pope Benedict:

The media coverage completely ignored the rest of the trip to Africa on account of a single statement. Someone had asked me why the Catholic Church adopts an unrealistic and ineffective position on AIDs. At that point, I really felt that I was being provoked, because the Church does more than anyone else. And I stand by that claim. Because she is the only institution that assists people up close and concretely, with prevention, education, help, counsel, and accompaniment. And because she is second to none in treating so many AIDs victims, especially children with AIDs.

I had the chance to visit one of these wards and to speak with the patients. That was the real answer: The Church does more than anyone else, because she does not speak from the tribunal of the newspapers, but helps her brothers and sisters where they are actually suffering. In my remarks I was not making a general statement about the condom issue, but merely said, and this is what caused such great offense, that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms. Much more needs to be done (emphasis mine). We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease.

As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself (emphasis mine). More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves (emphasis mine). This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man's being.

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, (The preceding is the only sentence the secular media focused on to reach their conclusions) 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 (emphasis mine).

(The next question and answer was totally ignored by the secular media in their reporting)

Peter Seewald:

Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

Pope Benedict:

She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution (emphasis mine), 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 (emphasis mine).

So with the full text in question now presented, what conclusions can we derive?

First things first. There is a principle in Biblical interpretation that goes:

"A text, out of context, is pretext."

It means that every text of the Bible should be understood in its integral context: in the unity of the whole message of a chapter, of a series of books, of the theology of the writer, and even the unity of the whole Biblical message. Taken in isolation, a text in the Bible can be reduced to a pretext, i.e., a half-truth or at worst, a misleading misinterpretation.

The headlines we read above, regarding the supposed change Benedict proposes on the consistent sexual ethics of the Church connected with condoms and HIV, are clear examples of a text taken out of context. As you can see, Pope Benedict gave a long answer to a rather short question. I highlighted the parts that spell out clearly Benedicts' convictions as well as that of the Church's. What some interpreters took out in isolation was that part where it says, "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". They did not even finish the whole sentence.

With these laid out, so what now did Pope Benedict NOT say?

1. First of all, this is a personal interview. Pope Benedict is not speaking here in his capacity as the Supreme Teacher of the Catholic faith. What you find in the book are not proposed as official teachings nor pronouncements being sent out to the Catholic faithful. Some of the things we can read here can even fall in the category of personal opinions and therefore do not and cannot present themselves as official Magisterial teachings. If the Pope wants to hold out a new teaching based on his reasoned discernment as the Successor of Peter, a personal interview is not the place to do it. Everyone who knows basic Catechism understands this, much more the Pope. And so headlines claiming, "Pope changes teaching on Condoms, Contraception and HIV", or "Pope: Condoms OK in fight Against AIDS" are totally way out of line.

2. Nowhere in the text of Pope Benedict's response can we find a summary justification of the morality of condom use. This is clear in the texts I highlighted. Let me highlight them once again: "that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms. Much more needs to be done," ; "But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself"; "This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves" ; "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."

I don't see how the quotes above translate to "Pope OKs condom use". On the contrary, the above quotations reflect the consistent conviction of the Church regarding condom use vis a vis HIV/AIDs: that condoms are not the solution. If at all, they contribute to the perpetuation of the problem.

In scientific circles, it is openly admitted that condoms are in fact not 100% safe. On an average, it is said that there is a 10-15% inefficacy, since the AIDS viruses are much more `filtrating' (i.e., able to pass through) than the sperm. Google "condom voids" and you will discover that the male sperm is small enough to easily pass through the pores/natural voids of the rubber latex, thus the 10-15% failure rate as a contraceptive. Condoms have natural microscopic holes which measure 5 micron (.0002 inches) while the HIV virus measures 0.1 micron (4 millionth of an inch). It's a no-brainer. Prescribing condoms as a protection for HIV and AIDS is a virtual Russian roulette. Sooner or later, you will have it. It's only a matter of time. Therefore, even at a "technical" level of efficacy, one should question the scientific seriousness and the consequent professional seriousness of the condom campaign.

Condoms can only reduce the risk of infection. And with the fatally serious threat of HIV/AIDs, risk reduction is not acceptable. Prevention is the only acceptable option. And prevention is only served by abstinence (for the unmarried) and monogamy and fidelity (for the married).

In the first place, Pope Benedict's response was not even a direct commentary on the possible moral justification of condom use, clearly not for contraception. He was making a moral speculation on what may be going on in the heart of one (a male prostitute ) who uses the condom in a homosexual sex act.

What did Pope Benedict intend to say?

Pope Benedict was specific in his response. He spoke of a "male prostitute" who uses a condom. What the Pope stressed was not that condom use is OK in the case of a male prostitute engaged in heterosexual or homosexual acts. He merely said that "this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility" Perhaps an analogy can help us appreciate what the Pope is saying (for this point I will modify a principle I picked up from lay moral theologian Janet Smith).

There are two robbers. One uses a real knife with a real intent to kill and harm. The other, uses a plastic knife, because he does not intend to kill. He only intends to frighten and intimidate. Both men will be committing an evil act. But obviously, between the two, it is the one who employs a plastic knife that shows at least a hint, a semblance, a little amount of moral responsibility which hopefully, can still mature to a real and correct kind of moral responsibility that will let him realize that robbing people is an evil option to take. Does this mean the Church will teach that it is "OK" and moral to rob people using a toy knife? No. The Church simply says that between the two, the one with the toy knife is the one that manifests a semblance of an "assumption of moral responsibility", immature it may be.

The same logic can be applied to Pope Benedict's example. Obviously, the mere fact that the person used a condom indicates a "semblance of responsibility." One who engages in prostituted sex without a condom, shows a total absence of moral responsibility, for himself or for the other. Compared to this one, one who uses a condom at least shows a hint of "assuming a responsibility" which Benedict hopes can be a "first step in the direction of a moralization" i.e., hopefully it can develop to a more correct kind of responsibility, not in the direction of regular condom use, as secular interpreters assumed, but, as Benedict finished his sentence, (which the secular media left out), "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."

As we see here, Pope Benedict is too deep a theologian and a thinker to be presented from a shallow and surface level interpretation. The Pope and the Church's consistent ethical teachings deserve more than that. We pray that the media may also assume responsibility in reporting matters especially those related to faith and morals. We pray that intellectual integrity and professionalism may not be sacrificed for the sake of ideology, sensationalism and paper sales.

The best comment so far on the Pope's words on condoms

The following words were penned by Fr. John Hunwicke, a priest of the Church of England who belongs to its most fervently "Catholic" wing, and whose theological and liturgical views are almost always more "Traditional Catholic" than those of most Catholic priests. He is expected to join the Catholic Church in the near future, and hopefully get ordained as a Catholic priest soon after. (For this reason I am not classifying this post under "Non Catholic Voices".)

From Fr. Hunwicke's excellent blog, "Liturgical Notes":

I'm not in the habit of attacking the Sovereign Pontiff. Moreover, I don't usually criticise his advisers and assistants, because so often his critics attack them simply as a craven and cowardly way attacking the pope himself but doing it by proxy. For similar reasons, I haven't even ever attacked his Press and PR people.

But ... as a humble and simple pastor, I really would prefer that items which are going to hit the headlines were not sprung on us late on Saturday, so that we're short of time in getting things straight ready for enquirers after Sunday Mass. As with this condoms business.

Having contemplated the BBC translation of the German texts, I see what the Holy Father's words mean. He is saying that if a rent-boy has unprotected sex, he is committing two sins: the mortal sin of homosexual genital intercourse; and the mortal sin of risking communicating a lethal infection. If, however, he uses a condom, while he is still committing the first of those mortal sins, he has to a degree excluded the second. By so doing he has, as we might say, taken a step in the right direction. But he has still committed a mortal sin and is still, objectively speaking, not in a state of grace. There is a sense in which it is not as bad to commit one sin as it is to commit two; but the commission of one mortal sin still means that one is objectively in that state of alienation from God which we Christians call Not Being In a State of Grace.

Our enemies, of course, do not understand (and have no interest in understanding) about Being In a State of Grace. Secularists are, even when they hold Oxford professorships, a generally dim lot ... dim because of a bigoted determination not to understand. They just want to ask blunt and unnuanced questions about "Is it All Right to use condoms?". Within this toddler-level mode of moral discourse, our Holy Father's simple statement of the moderately obvious is bound to seem to them like a "change in his implacable opposition to the use of condoms". So we have to listen to these dreary half-wits condescending to a rather abler mind than theirs by saying that "the pope has at least learned a little from experience". Thank God, he has done nothing of the sort.

Behind all this there is the determination of secularists to spread, by hook or by crook, fornication, adultery, and most other sexual disorders (not at the moment paedophilia, of course, because that is at the moment a handy stick with which to belabour the Church). They bleat incessantly about the plight of AIDS victims in Africa, but only a fool would believe that these well-heeled and malevolent chatterers lose a moment's sleep worrying about such problems. Often sexually incontinent themselves, their relentless desire is to remake humankind in their own corrupt image. The Devil has blinded these intellectual giants to the fact, obvious to any simpleton reading the papers, that the sexual licence which they so successfully promoted in the second half of the twentieth century has led to an explosion of lethal bodily ailments such that even a classical utilitarian in the dear simplistic old John Stuart Mill tradition would be able to discern their immorality in promoting the vices which are so dear to them and so deadly to the multitudes whom they are successful in corrupting.

This business may have several outcomes. The lying classes may be successful in their attempt to create an impression that the Catholic Church is now gradually "seeing sense" on condoms, and thus to reinforce those who have been deceived by the Spirit of the Age into their wrongdoing. On the other hand, it is so obvious that what the pope has said has a nil bearing on questions of morality of contraception and of homosexuality that they may soon return to pointing this out and attacking him on all their old familiar grounds. Given Screwtape's skill in getting the best of two contradictory worlds, they may very well go for both these mutually exclusive conclusions simultaneously.

Perhaps some of the Pope's 'friends' (with 'friends' like his, who needs enemies?) will say that he has expressed himself in a way that lays him open to being misunderstood. But think about it. He has very carefully done exactly the opposite. Had he taken, for his exemplum, a heterosexual couple one of whom was infected with AIDS, he would have indeed left himself wide open to the superficially plausible accusation of a U-turn opening the door to the liceity of contraception within marriage. By using the exemplum of a rent boy, he has made this impossible. Nobody could seriously think that, overnight, a pope had so far moved from the Church's previous moral teaching as now to uphold the liceity of homosexual intercourse and of prostitution ... simultaneously.

Nobody, that is, except journalists verging on imbecillity or mired in habitual mendacity.