Readers of George Weigel’s The Pope, the Church, and the Condom, published in “On the Square” last Friday, will be interested to know that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has issued a clarification of Benedict’s now infamous remark in Light of the World. Here is the English translation of the statement.
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 misinterpreta- tion (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)
[01827-02.01]
December 21st, 2010 | 4:11 pm
I’m not sure why the document focuses on the purported deduction of some that contraception could be permitted to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. I didn’t see anyone interpreting the Pope’s comments that way, but perhaps I missed it.
But the statement does effectively counter, in the previous sentence, the main incorrect interpretation: that contraception could be allowed for an HIV-infected marital spouse intending merely to avoid transmission.
“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.”
December 21st, 2010 | 5:56 pm
So, the clarification re. commandments is:
A married sero-discordant couple should remain genitally abstinent, avoiding 5th and 6th commandment violations.
If they engage in unprotected intercourse, there’s a 5th commandment violation charged to the HIV positive partner (causing harm to the health/life of the negative partner).
If they engage in intercourse with a condom, there’s a 6th commandment violation (from the 6th commandment interpretation that pregnancy prevention, being sexual activity consciously aiming to prevent the generative function, is essentially adultery).
Using a condom to prevent a 5th commandment violation would not be allowed because it creates a new 6th commandment violation.
No proportionality allowed here. Preventing 5th is not worth causing a 6th. Intention is also not allowed here. Condoms would always be 6th commandment violations (in heterosexual activity, they would not, per se, be in same-sex activity, which is already its own 6th commendment violation).
However, if you were already violating the 6th commandment (e.g. prostitution, pregnancy prevention, same-sex sexual activity), then using a condom would save you from a 5th commandment violation. Thus, you’d be rung up on 1 sin, not 2.
Do I have this right?
So, essentially nothing has changed, right? Married couples cannot use condoms for disease prevention, correct?
JM
December 21st, 2010 | 9:50 pm
@ JM
OF COURSE nothing has changed! This has been soooo frustrating for me. (I know you know, I’m just venting my frustration at the world in general, not at you!) What the pope said could already have been inferred (and so had many, privately, without any need for the Church making an official statement) by anyone who understood the Church’s thinking about contraception and why it is evil.
December 21st, 2010 | 11:30 pm
In his most recent exclusive to Sandro Magister’s column, Fr. Rhonheimer maintains “Rhonheimer maintains that Janet Smith and George Weigel “have sought to give a particular interpretation of the Pope’s remarks which in my view is forced and unsustainable [and] clearly considered the Pope to be mistaken.” He also accuses Weigel of “[echoing] Long’s charges without apparently having studied my work on this topic.”
Sandro Magister, moreover, asserts:
“The note agrees completely with Rhonheimer’s positions … Those who – like Luke Gormally of the Pontifical Academy for Life … were urging the congregation to make a statement that would definitively settle the discussion and quell the “confusion” produced by the pope’s words, cannot help but be disappointed.”
So it would seem the more substantial debate between Catholics is not yet over.
December 22nd, 2010 | 9:31 am
“Infamous,” David? Pope Benedict’s comment is “infamous”? Having a reputation of the worst kind? Notoriously evil? Disgraceful? Causing or bringing infamy, i.e., evil reputation brought about by something grossly criminal, shocking, or brutal?
Christopher Blosser: Fr. Rhonheimer is blowing smoke. He’s not even wrong; he’s just making noise. Whatever substantial issues may remain to be discussed, there is no question concerning what Benedict said and didn’t say, and Smith and Weigel are simply correct on that score, as the CDF has now confirmed. For a pretty definitive smackdown on this point, see Jimmy Akin: http://tinyurl.com/2upj3j5
December 22nd, 2010 | 1:43 pm
Is anyone aware of an article comparing the Church’s apparent prohibition on the use of condoms for a married couple where one spouse has HIV with the doctrine of double effect in just war theory? Couldn’t the act of using a condom during sex be seen as one in which the good effect (protecting the spouse from HIV infection) outweighs the bad effect (contraception)? Consider the following from Aquinas:
“Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental as explained above (43, 3; I-II, 12, 1). Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one’s life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one’s intention is to save one’s own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in “being,” as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end.”
[Summa 2nd part of 2nd part, Qu.64, Art.7 found at http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article7
Couldn’t you use this as a basis to say the act of sex with a condom takes its species from what is intended, and for the sero-discordant couple, what is intended is the avoidance of a potentially fatal disease, and that outweighs the unintended effect of preventing a pregnancy?
December 22nd, 2010 | 2:53 pm
“Is anyone aware of an article comparing the Church’s apparent prohibition on the use of condoms for a married couple where one spouse has HIV with the doctrine of double effect in just war theory? Couldn’t the act of using a condom during sex be seen as one in which the good effect (protecting the spouse from HIV infection) outweighs the bad effect (contraception)?”
This POV has been argued, but the analogy fails for multiple reasons, the most important being that double effect does not cover intrinsically evil acts. Double effect covers just war because self-defense is not intrinsically evil, but does not cover terrorism targeting innocents because targeting innocents is intrinsically evil. Thus, even if terrorism targeting innocents would save lives in the long run, it cannot be justified by appealing to double effect.
Condom use is seen in Catholic thought as intrinsically evil because the spouses simulate but do not truly enact the nuptial union of man and wife as one flesh. They do not become one flesh, because they are separated by a latex barrier and there is no true union of reproductive systems. Instead of being united, each remains separate. Catholic thought sees this as an abuse of sexuality, similar to masturbation. This cannot be justified for any reason whatsoever, just as we cannot commit adultery or rape even to save a life (under threat of a sadistic concentration camp commandant, say).
Even if, for the sake of argument, we grant the flawed analogy, there is another problem. War is justified only when, inter alia, evils greater than war itself cannot be prevented by any means except going to war. If there is another way that does not involve the physical evils of war, then war is not justified.
By the same token, in the case of marriage where one spouse has HIV, it is not like the only options are have “unprotected” sex or use a condom. There is another option: Abstain from marital relations. Therefore, condom use is not justified.
December 23rd, 2010 | 5:36 am
J seems to come close to the view of double-effect, so mercilessly satirised by that great philosopher of action and intention, G E M Anscombe
“At the same time, the principle has been repeatedly abused from the seventeenth century up till now. The causes lie in the history of philosophy. From the seventeenth century till now what may be called Cartesian psychology has dominated the thought of philosophers and theologians. According to this psychology, an intention was an interior act of the mind which could be produced at will. Now if intention is all important–as it is–in determining the goodness or badness of an action, then, on this theory of what intention is, a marvellous way offered itself of making any action lawful. You only had to ‘direct your intention’ in a suitable way. In practice, this means making a little speech to yourself: “What I mean to be doing is. . .”
This perverse doctrine has occasioned repeated condemnations by the Holy See from the seventeenth century to the present day. Some examples will suffice to show how the thing goes. Typical doctrines from the seventeenth century were that it is all right for a servant to hold the ladder for his criminous master so long as he is merely avoiding the sack by doing so; or that a man might wish for and rejoice at his parent’s death so long as what he had in mind was the gain to himself; or that it is not simony to offer money, not as a price for the spiritual benefit, but only as an inducement to give it…
It is nonsense to pretend that you do not intend to do what is the means you take to your chosen end. Otherwise there is absolutely no substance to the Pauline teaching that we may not do evil that good may come.”
December 23rd, 2010 | 7:58 am
Talk about a tempest in a teapot, to any one with an ounce of sense it was obvious what the Holy Father was referring to and that he was only referring to that. The Churches position has been and is clear, the use of condoms for the purpose of preventing a pregnancy is wrong.
He was referring to a situation where that was clearly not the users intent regardless to the sinfulness of what they actually were doing. The Church is not against the use of condoms as shower caps.
December 23rd, 2010 | 10:20 am
“The Church is not against the use of condoms as shower caps.”
The laws of physical reality, however, are.
December 26th, 2010 | 8:38 am
“Benedict’s now infamous remark in Light of the World”
Incredible to see this written by a premium author of First Things. I’ll be looking for trustworthy opinion at some other site.
December 26th, 2010 | 3:30 pm
SDG: “Infamous” was a poor choice of words, since I was using it in the sloppy popular meaning of “famous and controversial and much attacked.” Which I think is how most everyone understood it.
December 27th, 2010 | 1:44 pm
An example may help illustrate consequences of the position that one side of the debate seems to be taking:
Two fathers rape their adolescent daughters. The first father uses a condom in the act, with the intention of preventing conception, while the other does not.
Janet Smith’s et. al.’s position seems to require a judgment that the sin of the father who used the condom was greater than that of the other father or that the first father in fact committed two sins: rape/incest and condom-use. This is because the integrity or natural good of the act of sexual intercourse was thwarted by the father using the condom, while it was preserved by the father who raped his daughter without use of the condom.
Is it possible that this is the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church? What magisterial document requires this conclusion?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact