MedLawPlus.com®
|
Article Archives (01-27-2005)
The Spanish Bishops and their Condom Flip-Flop
On January 18, 2005, "a spokesman for the Spanish bishops, Juan Antonio Martinez Camino was quoted as saying 'the time has come for a joint strategy in the prevention of such a tragic pandemic as AIDS, and contraception has a place in the context of the integral and global prevention of AIDS.'" Link. This was truly a miracle. A group of Catholic Bishops thumbed their noses at the Pope and decided to move their congregation out of the dark ages into the 21st Century by doing that which was logical and rational. Amen and alleluia! But wait. The following day, the Spanish bishops did a 180 and stated the following: "[T]here had been no relaxation in the rules and the 'use of condoms implies immoral sexual conduct.'" Link. Obviously, our heros the Spanish bishops had their gonads turn to dust in the face of intense pressure from the Vatican. We are awaiting a statement from Karl Rove at the White House branding the bishops as Kerry-style flip-floppers.
The Vatican's Position on Condoms
What exactly is the Vatican's stance on condoms? According to a church scholar quoted in the Reuters article about the condom flip-flop, there is no position.
"There is no blanket ban," said Father Brian Johnstone, moral theology professor at the Alphonsian Academy, a branch of the Pontifical Lateran University. "The Church has never said that it is wrong in all possible situations. The complexity of the problem has to be taken into consideration, sometimes at a very local and personal level," he told Reuters. Link.
How do I put this tactfully? I think Father Johnstone is either smoking crack or he is lying out his ass. I find his statement a deceitful attempt to deflect criticism from a clear Vatican position against use of condoms in all circumstances. True, the Vatican has never come out with a blanket statement banning use of condoms. However, the Pope has gone one better: he has banned use of all contraceptives (not just condoms).
What the Catholic Church has clearly taught to be “intrinsically evil” is a specific kind of human act, defined by Paul VI in his encyclical Humanae Vitae, and later included in No. 2370 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as an “action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible”. Link.
Here it is in a nutshell: (1) the Church bans homosexual sex, (2) the Church bans all sex outside of marriage and (3) married couples, according to the Church, are charged with a duty to have children and, therefore, are not allowed to use any devices which might interfere with conception. In instances (1) and (2) above, the Church bans the promotion of condoms use by unmarried persons and homosexuals due to the fear that it will lead to an increase in what it considers to be immoral sexual behavior. The translation of this convoluted logic is that the only sex the Church sanctions is between a married couple (which can only be a man and woman) and that a married couple is not allowed to take action that in any way may interfere with procreation. Thus, all contraceptives are de facto banned by the Church.
I'll give the Church and Pope credit for being consistent in their logic. The core principle that underlies the above position is the sanctity of life. Upon these grounds the Pope opposes not only contraceptives but, also, abortion, capital punishment, and euthanasia. Simple enough right? All human action (and laws) must be attuned to promoting and protecting human life.
The Church has painted a nice black - white line in theory, or in the artificial (anachronistic) world of Vatican theology. The problem is that the world in practice exists in shades of gray. Very little we encounter in life is completely black or white, completely good or bad. For every give, there is a take. For every push, there is a pull.
The outlawing of birth control takes away the most effective means for a couple to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. What is the prime cause of a couple not to want children? In my opinion it is the lack of economic means to care for an additional child. The Church speaks vociferously against child poverty and hunger. However, banning birth control unquestionably leads to an increase in child poverty and malnutrition. UNICEF estimates that there are 1 billion children in this world who live in poverty. Link. Is the Church really promoting the most humane course of action when the denial birth control leads to an increase in unwanted babies who often are raised in poverty and malnutrition?
Condom use, one form of birth control, is the only medically tested and proven way to prevent the spread of AIDS. Link. Nothing else has been shown to work in the real world. The World Health Organization estimates that 40 million people in the world are currently infected with AIDS and that 3 million people died world-wide from AIDS in 2004. The figures for sub-Saharan Africa are staggering: 25 million people infected, 2.3 million deaths in 2004. And the Church's position is that we are not allowed to help save these people from the further spread of AIDS by promoting condom use? For the reason, heaven forbid, condom use may encourage unmarried persons to have sex or married person to have sex for reasons other than making babies? Saint Paul would be rolling in his grave. No, the Church would rather allow millions of people to die from AIDS than pull its pontifical head out of its ass exposing same to the light of day.
If you think I'm being too harsh on the Catholic Church (and, by extension, all Christian organizations that hold the same position--including our "evangelist-in-chief", Mr. Bush), then consider for a moment the monstrosity of the following fact.
The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.
The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV.
A senior Vatican spokesman backs the claims about permeable condoms, despite assurances by the World Health Organization that they are untrue.
The Guardian, 10-9-2003 (UK). FN1
It appears the Vatican's response to the inherent conflict of its positions (i.e., the stand against condom use on the premise that it is pro-life v. the reality that lack of condom use contributes to countless deaths from AIDS) was simply to lie about the facts. What the Vatican has done is lie to the public about the health benefits from condom use in an attempt to dissuade people from using them and, thereby, increase human exposure to the deadly AIDS virus. I find such action beyond objectionable, it is criminal.
FN1 In this interview on Vatican Radio, Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, emphasized the ineffectiveness of the condom as a contraceptive and in preventing sexually transmitted diseases. Nov. 12, 2003.
JJR
1-27-2005
|
|
|
