Blessed Mother Teresa's Advice Re AIDS and Condoms

What might Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta say about the use of condoms to protect another person from AIDS? What would she say in the case of two homosexuals? Or in the case of a married couple where one spouse has AIDS? Or in the case of a heterosexual couple who are not married?
Some years back a friend of mine wrote to Mother Teresa for the answers to some questions about condom use. She received the following reply from a Priest who had answered at Mother Teresa’s request, Fr Lawrence Abello S.J., a Jesuit who was at that time writing from St Xavier’s College in Calcutta. His powerful reply was also signed at the bottom, with a little message offering prayers, by Mother Teresa. It’s not short but it’s very clear and worth a read for anyone struggling with this issue.
31/8/93
Dear....
The Peace of Christ
Mother Theresa requested me to reply to your letter, dated 9/6/93
Your first question is the following: “What is the teaching of the Catholic Church for a married couple when one partner is H.I.V.+?” You add that “The Catholic Church allows natural family planning, i.e., sexual intercourse that will not lead to conception. Is it therefore wrong to use a condom in order to try to prevent harm to one’s partner?”
The Catholic Church teaches that contraception is an inherent moral evil because contraception falsifies the very meaning of the marital act which MUST EXPRESS THE LOVE OF THE SPOUSES. By the very nature of contraception, at least one of the spouses must manipulate self to destroy the power to conceive. This self-manipulation necessarily turns attention to self (i.e. is narcissistic), whereas, to be an expression of love, the marital act should turn attention to the spouse. To posit any act which, in its very nature, turns attention to self, falsifies the marital act and is, therefore, an abuse of a gift of God, which can never be morally justified.
In other words, the marital act can be an unreserved, total self-giving only if there is no deliberate manipulation of self to destroy the power to conceive – as happens in contraception. Being a self-manipulation to destroy the power to conceive, contraception necessarily is a narcissistic act which falsifies the expression of conjugal love by the marital act. Thereby, contraception is inherently evil.
Pope John Paul II expresses this narcissistic element of contraception as follows: “When couples, by means of recourse to contraception, separate these two meanings (i.e. the unitive and pro-creative), they manipulate and degrade human sexuality by altering the value of total self-giving. Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. When, instead, by means of recourse to phases of infertility, the couple respect the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meaning of human sexuality, they are acting as ministers of God’s plan and they benefit from their sexuality according to the original dynamism of total self-giving, without manipulation or alteration.” (Familiaris Consortio, by Pope John Paul II, No 32.)
Note that the reason why contraception is wrong is not that conception does not take place, but that a SELF-MANIPULATION is deliberately posited to destroy the power to conceive. Obviously, even when the married couple know that conception is not possible, they may perform an infertile marital act, as happens, not only during the infertile phases in cases of natural family planning, but also during pregnancy and in old age.
Note also that, even though a couple could not conceive a child for other reasons, such as old age, they may not use a condom or any other device to prevent the spread of AIDS. Being a self-manipulation, the use of any such device necessarily is a narcissistic act which falsifies the expression of conjugal love by the marital act. Thereby, the use of any such device is inherently evil and may never be morally justified for any reason whatsoever.
In short, the reason why contraception is wrong, i.e., self-manipulation in connection with the sexual act, applies equally to the use of a condom which merely “prevents” the spread of AIDS and is not strictly a contraceptive because the couple can not conceive for other reasons. When the “couple” are both men, there is not only the inherent evil of self-manipulation in using the condom; there is also the inherent evil of homosexual relations.
In the case of the married couple, it must be pointed out that marriage does not confer an unlimited right to sexual relations. Far from it. There is a right to the marital act only when it is an expression of love. For an H.I.V.+ person to have sexual relations with his or her spouse can never be an expression of love because – condom or no condom – such relations always have a certain risk of transmitting the lethal AIDS virus. The only loving and moral solution for the couple, when one spouse is H.I.V.+, is to live like brother and sister.
In his Encyclical ‘Humanae Vitae,’ Pope Paul VI teaches that “any action is prohibited which has, as its purpose, to impede procreation regardless of whether such an action is posited before, during or after the conjugal act. Nor may one adduce as valid arguments (to justify contraceptive acts) either that one must choose what appears to be a lesser evil or that these (contraceptive) acts participate in the moral goodness of fertile acts already posited or to be posited” – cf. ‘Humanae Vitae’ No.14.
Those who propose the “lesser evil” argument, i.e., that the use of a condom is a “lesser evil” than the spread of AIDS, never distinguish moral evil from physical evil. The use of a condom for whatever reason is a moral evil, i.e., the violation of the Sixth Commandment, whereas, death as such, even from AIDS, is a physical evil. The Catholic will accept the Church’s official teaching that, knowingly and willingly, to violate any of the Ten Commandments always involves personal sin. Basing herself on the true sense of the infinite evil of sin inasmuch as it is an offense against the Infinite God, and also basing herself on the witnessing of the martyrs, the Church teaches that no good end can ever morally justify the violation of any of the Ten Commandments.
Moreover, quite apart from the morality, on the purely practical level distributing condoms as a protection from AIDS gives false hopes. The use of the condom is not at all a complete protection against AIDS. The condom has a significant failure rate even as a contraceptive and, from recent literature which did not give reference to the scientific sources, the AIDS virus is 450 times smaller than a sperm! Whatever be the accuracy of this figure, distributing condoms to stop the spread of AIDS involves implicit approval of deviant sexual behaviour because one is formally cooperating to overcome the problems to practice such behaviour. Hence by distributing condoms one is promoting the addictive use of sex, i.e., contraception, and the other perversions which turn the attention inwards to self, reduce sexual relations to a habit which, like narcotic-drug habit, has to be fed. Cf. The literature of ‘Sexaholics Anonymous’.
Consequently, although the use of a sterilized syringe to inject oneself with a narcotic drug, or the use of a condom, may prevent the spread of AIDS in concrete acts to feed the drug or sex habit, promoting such practices promotes the behavior patterns which led to the AIDS problem in the first place. After all, addicts will feed the drug or sex habit even when a sterilized needle or a condom is not available. Hence, even from a purely practical point of view, distributing condoms as a protection from AIDS gives false hopes. Such an approach to control the spread of AIDS is based on an erroneous position, i.e., that one can control the diseases spread by addictions by means of protective devices which promote the addictive behaviour.
From all that has been stated above, it follows that a person working in an AIDS Center may not formally cooperate in the evil of homosexual relations, or of contraception-type heterosexual acts (e.g., between spouses) by having anything to do with the distribution of condoms. Likewise, the person working in such a Center may not formally cooperate in the evil of drug abuse by distributing sterilized syringes to drug addicts to avoid the spread of AIDS. Such an AIDS worker must SUFFER the AIDS-related deaths that addicts inflict upon themselves instead of FORMALLY COOPERATING in the moral evil of degrading the addict further by helping him to solve his problems in practising the addictive behaviour. In this connection, we must remind ourselves that God permits or suffers evil but never commits it, and we are called to be God-like. We must also remind ourselves that the highest value of a person is to reach eternal life. Cooperating in degrading the addict further, by formally cooperating in fostering “safe sex” or “safe drugs”, jeopardizes the addict’s eternal life and is a much greater evil than death – such cooperation is not true compassion.
You may reproduce and pass on this letter to whomever you wish. I shall be happy to answer any further questions you may have.
Sincerely in Christ,
The letter is then signed by Fr Lawrence Abello, S.J.
Below this is added in handwriting: I will pray for you God bless you M Teresa MC

Support the pro-life work of The Good Counsel Network through prayer, or donate to our work.

Clare McCullough

The Vatican Corrects Erroneous Interpretations of the Pope's Words on Condoms

Note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
On the trivialisation 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 misinterpretation (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).

Posted by Mary O'Regan

Picture borrowed from here

Pope Benedict, Condoms and Controversy

The Spiritual Director of Family Life international has written a thoughtful and helpful article on the Pope's recent words about condoms, which we have reprinted in full below. We have been highlighting this issue on our blog over the last few days to try and provide those who are confused with an accurate explanation of what he actually said. You may find it helpful to look back over our recent posts on the issue since Saturday 20th November.

Clare McCullough

Pope Benedict and the Condom Controversy
By Fr. Linus F. Clovis PhD Spiritual Director of FLI

The international news headline "Pope approves use of condoms - sometimes" was described as an earthquake in the Church. When I heard of it, I was both amused and incredulous and responded "Impossible!" Reviewing the media reports, I was even more amused by the desperate spin that oozed out of the articles written on the subject. Of course, there is a poor understanding of things Catholic in media circles and, sadly, even among Catholics, which only adds to the confusion.
In this current condom controversy, it is absolutely necessary to go back to what the Holy Father actually said, the manner and context in which he said it and to whom he said it. In the interests of brevity, I shall summarily deal with the last three points, but explore the first in depth.
Last Saturday the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, published an excerpt from an upcoming book, Light of the World: The Pope, The Church and The Signs Of The Times. The book is basically a long interview the German journalist Peter Seewald had with Pope Benedict. (The English translation would be released by Ignatius Press five days later on Thursday 25 November.) In it, Seewald engages the Pope in a discussion of the Church's role in the modern world, which, of course, includes issues of morality and, not surprisingly, the use of condoms as a solution to the AIDS epidemic. Thus, while many have commented on an excerpt from the book, few have actually read the book. Given this context, the Pope's comments are therefore the thoughts of a private theologian and by no means an official, still less, a dogmatic utterance or teaching to the whole Church. But even as a private theologian the Pope's thought is not without impact and so it is necessary to examine exactly what he said.
It would seem that the controversy was provoked by the Pope saying

"There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality."

In the quote, the Pope in no way advocates the use of condoms but rather points out, by way of example, that when a male prostitute, presumably HIV+ and homosexual, uses a condom to reduce the risk of spreading a lethal disease, he is showing some advance along the scale of morality. That is, he is acknowledging that he may not do as he pleases, that his actions affect others and that he has some responsibility to others in the society; consequently, he is groping his way along the road to moral recovery. In other words, although his sexual behaviour is morally disordered and therefore sinful, his intention of not transmitting death to someone introduces an element of goodness in his behaviour without, however, changing the sinful nature of the act in any way. By way of example, lying under oath is always sinful, even if one tells the lie with the intention of protecting an innocent person. Equally, the deliberate killing an unborn child is always sinful, even if the child would be born deformed, or, in another case, to avoid foetal pain, anaesthetised by the abortionist.
The Pope, far from saying that condoms are good and should be used, if fact, explicitly ruled out condoms as a solution to HIV/AIDS, pointing out that the epidemic will only end when human sexuality is understood in its proper context of faithful and responsible human love. Again, to quote him
"People can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a 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."
Here, the Pope is pointing out that condoms cannot be the solution to the AIDS epidemic since, despite being widely available, the rampant spread of HIV continues. This reality, he notes, is recognised even by secular sources who, agreeing that a condom-only solution is no solution at all, have proposed the ABC approach to the problem. In fact, the Pope identifies the "banalization of sexuality" as the primary culprit for the spread of AIDS. The banalization of sexuality refers to the reduction of sexuality to a casual encounter, shorn of any reference to the spiritual and moral dimensions of the human person. In the modern world, sexuality is too frequently used as an instant necessary gratification for lust rather than love, somewhat comparable to the gratification received through drug use.
This will no doubt generate more discussion and possibly lead to further confusion but, what needs to be kept in mind is that the Church received her teaching from Christ Himself. She does not and cannot change that teaching but rather interprets it anew for each successive generation. There will also be further efforts to interpret the Pope's comments contrary to the Church's perennial and well-known teaching and position on contraception. The Pope, however, has no power or authority to change Christ's teachings. His task is to pass on what has been handed down.
Pope Benedict XVI is a remarkably skilled and courageous theologian who, I believe, wishes to engage the modern world in a positive and fruitful dialogue about human sexuality so that the world's sterile and rigid ideological misconceptions of Man as nothing more than an intelligent ape might be replaced by the view of Man as a creature, only "a little lower than the angels." Ps.8:6. The controversy generated by the Regensberg lecture (12 Sept. 2006) has resulted in a small but healthy dialogue with segments of the Moslem world. I pray that this controversy will do the same for the West.

Family Life International is a Catholic Pro-Life / Pro-Family Organisation defending Faith Life and Family

Pope Did Not Legitimize Condom Use, Affirms Spanish Bishop

The Catholic News Agency reports the following: The secretary general of the Spanish Bishops’ Conference recently remarked that the Pope's comments in the newly-released book, “Light of the World,” do not legitimize the use of condoms.
Bishop Juan Antonio Martinez Camino noted on Nov. 26, at the conclusion of the Spanish bishops' 96th plenary assembly, that the use of condoms “always” takes place “within a context of immorality.” Thus, he continued, it “can never be recommended.”
He said the Pope’s comments did not represent anything new in Church teaching and therefore the Spanish bishops did not address the issue during their meeting.
“There is no cause for alarm” for Catholics, he said, as they know that the Church’s teachings “are not learned from news headlines” but rather from “catechesis, religion classes and confession.”
Bishop Martinez underscored that the media has been filled with “inaccurate headlines” about the Pope’s comments on condoms. He added that the book, “Light of the World,” by German journalist Peter Seewald, is “an excellent introduction to what it means to be Christian.” It conveys “the perfect compatibility of the Christian faith with the positive aspect of modernity” and it reveals “the heart and mind of the Pope in order to interpret his actions and decisions properly.”

If I Were Not Catholic, I Would Still Oppose Condoms.

It’s been a heady and confusing week. Many rumours have surrounded a remark made by Fr Lombardi, purportedly saying that Pope Benedict may be in favour of female prostitutes using condoms. (Editor's note: Let's not be led astray by hearsay remarks with no real authority behind them, and for our comment on the Holy Father's words, see here) This remains to be clarified. But it does seem rather unusual for a Pope who has, over many years, been so outspoken against condoms. Many Catholics are in a quandary about what to think and do; many are asking themselves if they should be in favour of condoms. After all, all the media outlets have bombarded us with reports that the Pope has ‘permitted’ use of condoms, complete with lots of opportunistic ‘arguments’ about why the Pope would be in favour of condoms. The media doth protest too much.
There will always be groups and individuals who will try and twist a priest’s or a Pope’s words to fit an agenda. But we need to hold true to the facts. Nothing has changed in Church teaching. We cannot promote condoms, OK, well maybe as a wet suit for a mouse, poor mouse!
Much as I loathe The Guardian, their motto is ‘comment is free, facts are sacrosanct.’ Telling people that they will be ‘safe’ if they use condoms is a comment, but factually it is leading them into a fool’s paradise.
From an objective viewpoint, were I not Catholic, I would still be against condoms for social as well as scientific reasons. Anyone, from any religion, and any culture, should be aware of the ineffectiveness of condoms. One study found that the AIDS virus was several times small than the holes in the latex, allowing it easily to pass through. In fact the comparison was that the AIRS virus could slip through a hole in the latex as easily as a dime through a basketball hoop.
Just this week, in our centre, we were helping a young teenager, let’s call her ‘Reena’. Reena has been a child prostitute and is now pregnant. She told me that she used condoms ‘every time’. Now, I’m not very bright, but if she got pregnant, did her ‘clients’ give her any diseases? Have her ‘clients’ got any diseases from her, of which they are unaware?
The emotional cost of Reena’s time on the street is untold. When I first met her, I thought she was over thirty, her face has such a lined, weary look of shame and indignity. Was a condom meant to save her from this? She was never told there’s no condom for the heart.

Mary O'Regan

Fr Fessio, Pope Benedict XVI and Condoms

I filched this article from here . I generally find Fr Fessio's commentary to be sound.

Did the Pope “justify” condom use in some circumstances?
A close look at the text reveals no change to Church teaching.
By Father Joseph Fessio, S.J.

Did the Pope “justify” condom use in some circumstances?

No. And there was absolutely no change in Church teaching either. Not only because an interview by the Pope does not constitute Church teaching, but because nothing that he said differs from previous Church teaching.

Then why all the headlines saying that he “approves” or “permits” or “justifies” condom use in certain cases?

That’s a good question. So good that the interviewer himself asked virtually the same question during the interview.

he Pope made a statement in the interview, which statement has now been widely quoted in the worldwide media. Immediately, the interviewer, Peter Seewald, posed this question: “Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?”

The Pope clarified and expanded on his previous statement.

So let’s look at the two statements.

After saying that “we cannot solve the problem [of AIDS] by distributing condoms…” and that “the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality…” the Pope says: There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality” (all emphasis mine).

That is a heavily qualified, very tentative statement. Nevertheless, it prompted Seewald’s question, quoted above. But let’s first take a closer look at this statement. The original German for “There may be a basis in the case of some individuals…” is “Es mag begründete Einzelfälle geben….” The English here is a faithful, accurate translation.“Begründete” comes from “Grund” = “ground,” and it means both the soil we stand on and a logical foundation. There is some ambiguity because it could have the weak sense of “some basis for” or a strong sense of “a logical or ethical foundation for.” This is perhaps why Seewald asked the follow-up question, so we’ll turn to that in a moment.

It is important to note that there are two very serious mistranslations in the Italian version of the Pope’s remarks, upon which many early reports were based, since the embargo was broken by the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano. (That’s another story.) First, the German speak of “ein Prostituierter,” which can only be a male prostitute. The normal German word for prostitute is “[eine] Prostituierte,” which is feminine and refers only to a woman. The Italian translation “una prostituta” simply reverses what the Pope says.

Equally problematically, “giustificati” = justified, was used in the Italian translation of “begründete,” and arbitrarily resolves the ambiguity one-sidedly.

The Pope responded: “She [the Church] does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality” (emphasis mine).

In the first place a solution which is not “moral” cannot be “justified.” That is a contradiction and would mean that something in itself morally evil could be “justified” to achieve a good end. Note: the concept of the “lesser evil” is inapplicable here. One may tolerate a lesser evil; one cannot do something which is a lesser evil.

But the crucial distinction here is between the “intention” of the male prostitute, viz. avoiding infecting his client, and the act itself, viz. using a condom. Since this distinction has been missed in almost every report I’ve read, it calls for some elaboration.

This distinction, in moral philosophy, is between the object of an act and the intent of an act. If a man steals in order to fornicate, the intent is to fornicate but the object is the act of theft. There is no necessary connection between stealing and fornicating.

In the case of the Pope’s remark, the intent is preventing infection and the object is use of a condom.

...In sum, the Pope did not “justify” condom use in any circumstances. And Church teaching remains the same as it has always been—both before and after the Pope’s statements.

Father Joseph Fessio, S.J. is founder and editor of Ignatius Press, the North American publisher of Light of the World, and publisher of Catholic World Report.

Pope Supports Condoms? - And So Do Little Green Men on Mars, Probably.

I was half asleep this evening when the BBC News Headlines came on telling us how the Pope accepts condom use in certain circumstances. Well after a second or two of sleepily thinking "Wow! I'm going to have to apostasy." I woke up and remembered that this was the BBC news after all and off I went to investigate further. Following the words of the wise sage at Mulier Fortis, and visiting the Curt Jester and reading the text of the Holy Father's words over a few times I'd like to offer a few thoughts.
1. The Holy Father never says condoms are morally acceptable, good, OK in certain circumstances or effective in preventing the transmission of HIV.
2. The Holy Father actually says condoms are never morally OK and are not a real solution to Aids in any circumstances.
3. His comments refer to homosexual activity of male prostitutes which is never open to life anyway - "intrinsically contraceptive" if you like. (But remember, EVEN in that case he does NOT say they are morally acceptable or effective).
4. The only point he really makes is that in the soul of a male prostitute - i.e. someone whose soul is immersed in darkness in relation to the meaning of human sexuality - that their INTENTION in using condoms with the belief that it may help to reduce the transmission of AIDS is a good sign, a pointer to some humanity, to a desire not to harm the other(s). The Pope only suggests that that INTENTION may be a beginning of a more human, more moral understanding of sexuality.

If a joyrider steals a car every Saturday night and cruises the highways and byways high on drugs, but one Saturday night his conscience suddenly stirs him and so after stealing his car he breaks into a private racing track and drives around there all night, thinking "I must not put other people at risk", what can we say of his action?
Stealing the car is wrong (like sex outside of marriage), driving it while high on drugs is wrong (like prostitution).
Breaking into a private racing track is morally wrong (like using a condom).
But perhaps in this broken example of humanity a spark of respect for life has broken in (As with the male prostitute who uses a condom to reduce the risk of death to his partners). This one good intention can be the seed of a change of outlook and a change of heart.
This is exactly what the Pope is saying as far as I can see.

Some have questioned the wisdom of the Pope intellectualising the finer points of the possibilities of what is going on inside the human heart in such a case. They point to the lurid and horrific headlines now sweeping the globe. But we must be ready to understand what the Pope has really said. And to defend him and the Church's teachings on sex. Personally I believe that what he has said is true and maintains the truth of the Church's teaching that the use of condoms is always morally wrong - even in the case of a male prostitute. And I know that however difficult it is to hear the Church being misrepresented everywhere, it is a sign of the depth to which the Church's teachings regarding condoms irritate - and influence - the secular world.

To read what the Pope actually said see the previous blog.

Clare McCullough

What the Pope Actually Said on Condoms

I have taken this whole article from the Catholic World Report, as lazy persons like myself do not follow up links sometimes and we all have a duty to read this. My comments follow in a seperate blog. But I have put my emphasis on some parts of the Pope's text, shown in red.

Clare McCullough

An excerpt from Light of the World, Peter Seewald’s book-length interview with Pope Benedict XVI, From Chapter 11, "The Journeys of a Shepherd," pages 117-119:


On the occasion of your trip to Africa in March 2009, the Vatican’s policy on AIDs once again became the target of media criticism.Twenty-five percent of all AIDs victims around the world today are treated in Catholic facilities. In some countries, such as Lesotho, for example, the statistic is 40 percent. In Africa you
stated that the Church’s traditional teaching has proven to be the only sure way to stop the spread of HIV. Critics, including critics from the Church’s own ranks, object that it is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms.

The media coverage completely ignored the rest of the trip to Africa on account of a single statement. Someone had asked me why the Catholic Church adopts an unrealistic and ineffective position on AIDs. At that point, I really felt that I was being provoked, because the Church does more than anyone else. And I stand by that claim. Because she is the only institution that assists people up close and concretely, with prevention, education, help, counsel, and accompaniment. And because she is second to none in treating so many AIDs victims, especially children with AIDs.

I had the chance to visit one of these wards and to speak with the patients. That was the real answer: The Church does more than anyone else, because she does not speak from the tribunal of the newspapers, but helps her brothers and sisters where they are actually suffering. In my remarks I was not making a general statement about the condom issue, but merely said, and this is what caused such great offense, that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms. Much more needs to be done. We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease.

As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a 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.

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.

Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

Condoms Don't Protect Women or Their "Unplanned" Children

Knowing contraception to be intrinsically evil, we never even suggest to a girl that she use it. We do, however invite them to tell us what contraception (if any)they are using. There is a strange phenomenon to be observed with many who reply, ‘I’m not using any contraception’; when we ask these same people have they been using condoms, they say yes.
Few pregnant women that I meet think of condoms as contraception anymore. These women have become too accustomed to condoms splitting and breaking; then the women would get the Morning After Pill as ‘back-up’. And if that doesn’t work, an abortion.
Other women who do still think of condoms as effective contraception are very frank;
‘If I ask him to use condoms, he can always find another woman who won’t ask him to use condoms. I came off the Pill because I was becoming as fat as a balloon...but when it comes down to it...he gets snarly when I ask him to use condoms.’
Many women say without embarrassment, ‘I’m afraid that I’ll lose him if I don’t give him sex every time.’
These are the same women who when they become pregnant are told by their boyfriends, ‘you weren’t meant to get pregnant, it’s your fault.’ And, ‘I’m not staying with you unless you have an abortion.’

Mary O'Regan

Urgent Prayer Request After Yet More Condom Failure

A young muslim lady recently arrived on the doorsteps of an abortuary hoping to have a pregnancy test and an abortion. She didn't have an appointment. Fortunately for her baby this meant she could not be seen.

She then met a supporter who persuaded her to come to our Centre for the pregnancy test. The girl is studying and hopes to take further qualifications later. She considers her ex-boyfriend, the father of her child who is unaware of the pregnancy, to be too immature to stay with. She was quite surprised to find herself pregnant as they had only been sleeping toegether occassionally and were using condoms. Having bought into our culture's lies - that sex is a recreational activity and not part of a Marriage commitment - and also believing that condoms always prevent pregnancy, this young lady is now faced with a stark choice of continuing the pregnancy and giving up all the plans she had or having an abortion.

At the end of a her time at her Centre (she stayed for two hours) she was still quite set on the idea of abortion. The friend who had accompanied her to the abortuary felt that abortion was wrong except in some circumstances - i.e. her friends! The volunteer who met them at the abortuary spoke to me later in the day and said "Oh well! It's a miracle we need then. I will ask everyone I know to pray for her."

And I too am asking you, please pray for this young lady.

Stuart McCullough

Condoms and STDs

The majority of the ladies that I have met with ‘unplanned pregnancies’ have been relying on condoms to separate their act of love from conceiving a baby. When they hear the news that they are pregnant, they usually say, ‘I can’t understand why I’m pregnant, I used a condom’.

The supporters of condoms admit that condoms may not protect against pregnancy, but they still babble the baloney that condoms ‘always protect against disease every time.’ Condom pushers have been careful to ignore a major US study, issued from the US Department of Health and Human Services, which found that there is no consistent evidence to support the idea that condoms stop the heterosexual transmission of STDs. A very scary fact was that the condom was found not to offer any ‘universal protection’ against the eight most re-occurring STDs, which include HIV, HPV and syphilis. Scarier still is that there are moves by condom pushers to prevent labels being put on condoms that would warn people of the findings of the US Study.
For a detailed review of the study, you may wish to read Mary Beth Bonacci’s article here.

Mary O'Regan