 |
|
Irish Independent, January 26, 2005 HOW THE CHURCH
CAN SOLVE THE CONDOMS CONUNDRUM A lot of things earn the Catholic Church a bad press but one of the biggest has to be its opposition to the use of condoms in the fight against Aids. Most people, including those who are basically well disposed towards the Church, cannot understand how it can be willing to put people's lives at risk for a dogma which seems to them at best highly eccentric and dated. Last week the Spanish bishops got themselves into all sorts of trouble over the issue thereby earning headlines the world over. On day one their spokesman seemed to indicate that condoms were a valid part of the war against Aids so long as due prominence was given to abstinence and fidelity. However, by day two a clarification of sorts was issued that reiterated their opposition to condoms but nonetheless seemed to keep open their line of retreat from that opposition by saying: "Condom use implies immoral conduct." Note that word 'implies'. But in truth more and more bishops are jumping ship over this one. No less a figure than England's Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, said recently: "While we can say that, objectively, the use of condoms is wrong, there are places where it might be licit, or allowable, as when there's a danger of intercourse leading to death." A few months before, Cardinal Daneels, a big noise in Catholic circles, said something similar. Against this, several leading Vatican officials have stated their absolute opposition to condom use under any circumstances. But on the other, the Vatican has never issued an official doctrinal statement. Most people probably know in a general sort of way why the Catholic Church opposes condom use. It's because a condom is a contraceptive and the Church is opposed to artificial birth control. But when a condom is being used by an Aids sufferer, it is being used to prevent death, not life. True, says the Church, but in this case it's being used to prevent both life (conception) and death. Is there a way that the Church can get out of the seeming moral corner into which it has painted itself? The answer is, probably. Consider this. The most esteemed Catholic theologian of all is Thomas Aquinas. He was as orthodox and straight down the line as they come. But this man of the Middle Ages believed that prostitution should not be suppressed, even though he also believed it immoral. So how did he arrive at this conclusion? Basically he believed the good that would be gained by suppressing it would be outweighed by the harm caused by doing so. He believed that all those bawdy - the word he used was 'lustful' - men who could no longer find prostitutes would instead 'express' themselves in much more anti-social ways. Aquinas drew a distinction between what is morally desirable and what would happen in the real world if you tried to make it morally perfect. Sometimes the common good requires that you turn a blind eye to what's immoral. Applying this logic to Aids, why can't the Catholic Church say that, although it believes condom use is immoral and undesirable, what is even less desirable is to have innocent people die because Aids sufferers won't use condoms when having sex. This would maintain the teaching on condoms and contraception but also allow the Church to present a practical response to Aids. It would then have much more credibility when it insists that promoting abstinence and fidelity should also be part of the fight against Aids. And as the prestigious medical magazine, The Lancet , reported recently, promoting abstinence and fidelity actually works and is not unrealistic as the dogmatists of the sexual revolution have always insisted. The Catholic Church needs to change its tune
on this issue, but so do the even more dangerous
dogmatists on the other side because not promoting
abstinence and fidelity also costs lives.
Home About Us Newsletters News Archives Donate
|