We need to seize the moment. The Pope’s recent comments of condom use present to us an excellent opportunity to learn, to reflect and to expose one of the most misunderstood ethical issues of the church. We must not seize the moment, as often happens, to create confusion or to profit from the sought attention, but for clarification.
The words of the Pope in the book “Light of the World” regarding condom use by a male prostitute do not allow for exceptions regarding the teaching of contraception. They simply land onto a soil of misunderstanding. In a world where the church is viewed as stubbornly and irrationally sticking to an obsession against condoms even in the case of preventing the spread of HIV, the statement of the Pope regarding the special case of a “male prostitute” comes as surprise, even a “liberal” surprise. In fact, to those familiar with the teachings of the church, it is nothing new.
Between the choice of engaging in unprotected or protected sex, a prostitute would do better using a condom than not using it and so the Pope calls this “a first act of responsibility,” “a first step on the road toward a more human sexuality.” This is a choice of conscience, which has no bearings on the teaching of the church regarding contraception among spouses.
The teaching of the church regarding contraception intends to protect something precious, namely, the marital act, from its deterioration. A sexual act against marital love (such as marital rape) or against offspring (such as contraception) cannot be a true marital act but its counterfeit. So the church calls couples to “humanize” their sexuality through the avoidance of a rejection of procreation.
In the same vein, that a prostitute regards condomized sex as a more moral option and whether promoting condoms is a true and effective way to battle the pandemic of HIV are two different issues all together. One is a case of particular conscience, the second a case of public policy.
When safety is at stake, there is no room for compromise. Where fires are serious national hazards, public policies do not teach people how to build “safe fires”; they just prohibit fire-building. Where speeding is a common cause of traffic accidents, governments do not invest in aggressive campaigns to teach citizens how to drive safely at high speeds; they forbid “dangerous” speed. Even in the case of such zero-tolerance approach, fires and speeding happen. They would undoubtedly be rampant if public policies would send a confusing or inconsistent message by encouraging risky behavior. The same applies to the spread of AIDS. The realistic policy is “avoid risky behavior” whether it is engaging in extra-marital sex or sharing hypodermic needles.
Condoms are certainly effective in reducing the contagion of HIV, but should their use be promoted as a remedy against HIV? One thing that we do know about condoms is that they do nothing for people’s chastity. If anything, condoms promote sexual promiscuity by giving a false sense of security against pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. In fact, it is the idea of condoms are the solution to unwanted pregnancies and sexual transmitted diseases that is greatly responsible for the de-humanization of sexuality in our societies. The consistent answer to the spread of AIDS is to make sexuality more human.
The church and the Pope are often accused of being obsessed about condoms. If all this turmoil is about condoning condom use, the Pope’s statements in Africa and in the, by now, famous book “Light of the World” sound contradictory. But, what if it is not about condoms after all? What if the church does not care about condoms but about humanizing sex? Who is really obsessed with condoms? the church or the Press?
February 1, 2012 at 6:57 pm
Hi fr. David,
I stumbled upon this blog while trying to get some information on condom use in Singapore. It has come to my attention that the National University of Singapore does not allow the sale of condoms on its campus, which I find morally reprehensible.
In the course of my searching I came across this article which worries me so much I feel forced to reply. Of all your arguments, I find this the most ludicrous:
- “When safety is at stake, there is no room for compromise. Where fires are serious national hazards, public policies do not teach people how to build “safe fires”; they just prohibit fire-building. Where speeding is a common cause of traffic accidents, governments do not invest in aggressive campaigns to teach citizens how to drive safely at high speeds; they forbid “dangerous” speed. Even in the case of such zero-tolerance approach, fires and speeding happen. ”
It does not take a genius to see that this argument has a massive logical flaw. The direct equivalent of banning safe sex would be banning fire and banning driving. Instead governments allow people to have barbecues, provided proper precautions are taken. They allow people to drive, having taught them how to drive safely and provided safe conditions for them to drive in. And of course they should also allow them to have sex, protected by a proper and unbiased education on the science of sex and the existence of a discourse in which people can have their burning questions answered.
Pushing such an important issue under the rug and denying its existence is to deny the truth to a whole generation of Singaporeans who desperately deserve better.
February 6, 2012 at 8:34 pm
Hi,
Sorry to see you missed my point. I erroneously presumed people would see the logic of it. I guess i should have phrased it better. At no point I argue that governments should ban safe sex as you somehow concluded. The topic at stake is not the legal issue of what to ban or not to ban, but one of education. The debate is whether teaching people to use condoms increases or decreases contagion. The argument goes that when dangerous behavior is at stake, policies do not educate people on how to make risky behavior safer, because the obvious conclusion would be an increase in risky behavior and an increase in the undesirable consequences of those behaviors. We are not concern here with normal traveling and barbecues, which are reasonably safe behavior; but with unsafe and unnecessary one: speeding and bush fires. A parallel to this policies regarding casual sex would be at the very least not to encourage it by teaching how to do risky behavior safely, because that would amount to saying this is what you should do when you drink and drive, this is what you should do when you burn bushes in the forest, etc.
And obviously, I do agree that all need to know of the dangers of spreading diseases and inform the public about the serious risks of engaging in casual sex; just as the public is educated about risks of drinking and driving, etc. There is a difference between educating about facts and risks of sex and trainning people about how to engage in risky behavior more safely. I hope this is clearer.