A Pet Peeve of Mine: The Vatican and Condom Use

Somewhat amusing that this thread first appeared directly above the thread asking if you have a sense of humor.

I mean that it's amusing to see the words Vatican and Condom in the same sentence (juvenile, I know). 

No, you wouldn't have.  AIDS defining illnesses are not at all like the flu or garden variety illnesses.

Opus, by my understanding, the issue is not whether the Vatican will condone condoms, but, rather, whether the Vatican can condone condoms. Or more specifically, whether the magisterium of the Church can discover a theology that could allow condom use in the case of AIDS.

I haven't talk to anyone or read anything that suggests that there is such a valid theology. Perhaps there is. I don't know.

Stories like the one you linked to come up now and then to suggest that there is some kind of power struggle within the Church, and that the "winners" will then get to decide what the teaching is. Contrary to the Da Vinci Code, it doesn't work that way.

The Church teaches that Christ instituted seven sacraments. Each one requires certain "valid matter" in order for it to be a valid sacrament. For example, a priest could not validly consecrate a Clif Bar and a cup of Gu2O during Mass. The Eucharist requires bread and wine in order to be valid.

Marriage has its own particular set of requirements. Condoms are never licit within the sacrament of marriage because the husband and wife must always be open to the possibility of life. And, of course, sex outside of marriage is never licit. And even for couples who are not Catholic, the Church cannot go against what it views ultimately as Christ's teaching by providing something illicit such as a condom.

Although it may look like it from the outside, the pope is not the equivalent of the CEO of the Church. Even if he personally believed that condom use to prevent the spread of AIDS between a husband and wife was a good thing, he could not just change Church teaching. It can not be changed unless some heretofore undiscovered truth of the matter was suddenly more properly illuminated. And even then, by my understanding, there would probably have to be a general agreement on this by the magisterium of the Church.

Again, perhaps that's possible. I really don't know, but I doubt it.

I think it's also a good thing to mention here that the Catholic Church provides something like one third of the care for persons with AIDS and HIV in the world. It's worth noting because the Church is an institution that is very aware of the ravages of this disease in the world.

Don, I listened to a story about this on CNN yesterday morning. The issue sounds more like is the church willing to tolerate condom use, not condone or endorse it. Sounds like splitting hairs, but, according to the story, isn't.

It talked about "double effect": if and action has two consequences, one good and one bad, then there may be a case for allowing that action.

The case they used: say a husband contracts HIV from a blood transfusion: is it OK for him to wear a condom to prevent transmission from his wife?

Yeah, that's why I thought it was funny.  Just couldn't put it into those words.

Seriously though, isn't the OP a bit of a stretch here?

Isn't it a bit of a leap to think that:

1.  The Catholic Church would be so active in this issue to condone the use of condoms.  (Whether it's for reasons like what Don typed or for more accusatory reasons, it ain't gonna happen).

2.  That IF the Church took this step it would have a significant effect on the spread of AIDS in Africa.

Jim - you bring up an interesting example from a theoretical standpoint.  In reality, church doctrine (or rather, the absence of church doctrine?) is not going to change on the subject just to deal with situations that can be simply handled by rational people.  Instead of asking how to reconcile your example with Church policy (which is the proverbial immovable object) ask how that situation should be dealt with by real people (priest, husband, wife.)  The phrase, Our God is a forgiving God comes to mind. 

OTOH, this is all coming from someone who does not consider Catholic Church doctrine to be the governing set of rules that others think it is, especially when it conflicts with common sense and in some cases, the Bible itself (Thou shall not kill?).  I'm Lutheran.

<<ground cracking open, flames of Hell rise high to consume Hangloose.>>

Jim, the principle of "double effect" is a really good point. For example, according to the priciple of double effect a woman with an ectopic pregnancy can have the embryo removed, even if the procedure kills the embryo, because the motivation for the act is to save the mother's life and not to kill the embryo.

So the question of whether the priciple of "double effect" would apply to using condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS is a good one.

I did a bit more reading last night, and came away further convinced that the consensus is that it could not be applied in the case of a married couple.  There's some speculation that it's possible it could be applied in other cases, such as the case of a prostitute. 

FWIW - the fastest growing segment of the HIV+ population in Africa is married women with unfaithful husbands...

Condoms - even when used properly - have a 2% failure rate. Is that not a  possiblity of life?  Are you implying that the omniscient and omnipotent God, the God who created the universe from nothing, the God who parted the Red Sea, the God who brought down the walls of Jerricho, the God who protected Daniel in the lion's den and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fiery furnace, would be thwarted by a couple of microns of latex if it were His will to bring a child into the world?There is at least one well-documented pregnancy proving that even complete abstinence will not prevent what He has ordained.

Why does the church hold that a 2% chance of pregnancy is too low,but allows that a 9% chance is OK?  (The rhythm method is 91% effective if it is adhered to perfectly. In typical use, condoms fail 15% of the time, and the rhythm method 25% of the time)  

Should I not wear my helmet when I ride my bike lest it interfere with His desire to bring me home when He wills? (Although, given my cheekiness this post, I might be overestimating my welcome