Can Vatican Allow Condoms?
|
The following is the copy of a letter addressed to Vatican Officials by Msgr. Ignacio Barreiro Carámbula, Director HLI-Rome,
May 2nd, 2006
Your Excellency:
I am addressing Your Excellency on the question of the morality of married couples using condoms in situations where one member of a couple is infected with HIV/AIDS. I am bringing this matter to your attention on the basis of credible journalistic information, which states that a document is being studied on this question. (Many articles can be quoted, perhaps the most reliable is the one published in the section Vita of L’Avvenire of Thursday April 27th, p. 3, under the title “Barragan: Aids, non sarà la Chiesa a promuovere il profilattico” that admits the probability of issuance of a document on this matter.)
|
HIV/AIDS is a death causing disease that can be transmitted through sexual intercourse. So a person that engages in sexual intercourse with his or her spouse, knowing that he is infected with HIV/AIDS, becomes the cause of death of his spouse. It has been proposed, that the Church consider permitting a married couple, when one of the members is infected, to use condoms to prevent the contagion of this disease as a morally permitted lesser evil. It has been proposed, also by a significant source, that the use of condoms in marriage “may be seen as a form of self-defense.” The theory has also been advanced that the prophylactic device could be considered a form of therapy.
The first objection against this proposal is based on the nature of marriage. The use of condoms separates the unitive and pro creative aspects of marriage and can never be morally licit. Evil can never be wished, desired, or committed to prevent a worse evil. Here we do not have the case of an evil that is tolerated or permitted, like tolerating a degree of social evil that we are not in a position to combat, but we are confronted by a case in which an evil is directly desired and executed. So, we cannot apply the Principle of Double Effect. To block the spread of the virus, the couple poses an evil act that is willed with conscience and knowledge, which breaks the two fundamental goods of marriage. Neither can it be considered a form of self-defense because we have an artificially construed case of aggression, save the case that the infected spouse would try to have intercourse by force, but if that risk exists, that would justify a physical separation of the couple. Additionally, the prophylactic device cannot be considered a therapy because it does not heal any conditions, and there is a totally safe alternative—abstinence. All these theories would lead to a disintegrative vision of human sexuality. A vision of sexuality that instead of being life giving is death giving.
The second objection is more serious because it risks the life of the healthy member of the couple. It is in blatant contradiction with the fifth commandment. Condom use by persons infected by HIV/AIDS always exposes the healthy person to some risk of infection and death as a consequence of full or partial prophylactic failure or slippage that leads to the contagion of a deadly disease. If condoms are so effective at preventing HIV/AIDS transmission, why do nations that stress their use continue to experience a rapidly escalating and explosive HIV/AIDS epidemic? Condoms do not guarantee protection against HIV/AIDS. Condoms may even be one of the main reasons for the spread of HIV/AIDS as we will demonstrate below.
A reasonable way of demonstrating the condom’s lack of effectiveness in preventing the transmission of HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) is by comparing its limited effectiveness in preventing pregnancy. Taking into account that in many instances, condoms are not used in accordance with the instructions, the failure rate can be from 10 to 14%. It should be obvious to any person that is not blind to the limitations of wounded human nature, in particular in moments of passion, that many times, condoms not going to be used in accordance with the instructions. If pregnancy happens in spite of the use of a condom, it is logical to conclude that transmission of STDs would also occur. To that, we have to add the obvious fact that pregnancy can only happen during the limited five to eight days of women’s fertility cycle, while HIV/AIDS can be transmitted at all times during a fertility cycle.
Condom integrity can be compromised and cause failure. Failure mechanisms include: 1. Manufacturing defects. There is plenty of evidence where batches of this product have been found flawed, both in developed and developing countries. 2. Inadequate handling during transportation or storage that leads to the deterioration of this product. It is well known that this product can be adversely affected by either extreme heat or cold. 3. Diverse forms of imprudent or erroneous handling by the consumer, like keeping the prophylactic for a long period in a pocket. 4. Scientific literature demonstrates a plurality of causes of accidental breakage.
Besides the different manufacturing defects and accidents that hamper its effectiveness, the prophylactic has a permanent structural problem as a defence against HIV/AIDS because the viruses of this disease are far smaller than the pores of the standard latex condom. It is difficult to evaluate how many of those viruses can pass through those pores taking into account different factors like hydraulic tension of the walls of the condom and the fact that many are associated with spermatozoids that would not be able to pass through those pores. But there is also scientific evidence of the free viruses that are able to pass through those pores.
Besides the risks inherent in every “protected action” in which the condom is used, there is a cumulative risk factor. Even if the risks were constant (and we know that they are not because there are variants that change increasing or decreasing these risks) the repetition of the conduct increases the probability of infection. What has to be considered therefore is not only the risk of infection from one act of “protected” intercourse , but also the cumulative risk from continuing “protected” acts of intercourse. The risk of infection and death dramatically increases in the medium or long term. One author, very reasonably claims that from an “epidemiological” perspective, an HIV/AIDS infected person having “protected” sex seven times, negates any protection a condom might offer. This means that safe sex becomes even more serious with repeated condom use. A person that persists in playing Russian Roulette will eventually kill himself, in the same way that a person that persists in having sexual relations protected by a condom with someone infected with HIV/AIDS.
Even if the principle body fluids that can be a vehicle for the HIV/AIDS contagion are directly connected with sexual activity, other body fluids can transmit this disease. So, close physical contact can be an occasion for the transmission of this disease as there are many skin surfaces not covered by the condom. Also we have to keep in mind that scientific literature demonstrates that the external surfaces of the prophylactic can be a cause of infection.
Last but not least there is an important pastoral consideration that should be taken into consideration to maintain the current teaching of the Church, which is the scandal that many persons of good faith are suffering at the publication of the news of a possible change in the moral teachings of the Church. This office has received numerous messages expressing this concern, so it would be a very desirable pastoral measure that the rumours on possible changes in the moral teachings of the Church should be put to rest.
In 1930, the Anglican leaders used the same arguments for changing the centuries-long Christian consensus on contraception. They also said that married couples could use condoms “responsibly” and for “proportionate reasons” and gave endorsement to the very immoral forces that eventually brought us the culture of death.
On the basis of the arguments put forward in this brief presentation, Human Life International is of the considerate view that the teaching of the Church with regards to the use of condoms should not be changed or qualified to permit its use by a married couples in the case that one of the spouses is HIV positive.
This office will be glad to provide any additional information that might be required.
Please accept, Your Excellency, the expressions of my highest consideration,
In the Lord.
Msgr. Ignacio Barreiro Carámbula
Director
HLI-Rome
|
|
Re: It's not always necessary to move to a bigger house, for growing families.
