I do not intend to comment on the Pope’s words about the use of the condom in certain “cases of an isolated nature,” as they are written in his recent book Light of the World. They are merely two paragraphs, referring in principle –in the German text– to the sexual activity of a “male prostitute,” apparently infected with the HIV virus, but later extended to other cases: “whether one is a woman, a man, or a transsexual, the point remains the same” (statement of Fr. Lombardi, S.J., spokesman of the Holy See. I merely seek to recall in summary the doctrine of the Church on the subject.
First I observe that those who came out in defense of what the Pope said almost all insisted that “it changed nothing in the doctrine of the Church.” And this is really the crucial point. The anti-Christ world could not care less about the liceity or illiceity of contraceptives; it does not even raise the question. What it desires with all its soul is that the Church change her doctrine, that she change it, correct it even on a single point, on any question, thereby acknowledging that in grave matters her teaching is not infallible, but is subject to substantial corrections.
1.- In conjugal sexuality the use of the condom is intrinsically evil. Conjugal sexuality –“God created them male and female”– is one of the most excellent manifestations of the human being’s condition as the “image of God.” Indeed, “God is charity” (1 John 4:8), and his love is fruitful in creation, which pours out his being and his goodness upon beings that did not exist: bonum est diffusivum sui. In this sense, love and procreation are, in marriage, a small epiphany of God himself, something so holy that in every culture it has been intuited that there is in the sexual union something sacred. Therefore, something that must in no way be profaned.
For this very reason, the exercise of sexuality is licit only within holy matrimony, in which are intrinsically united the unitive love and the possible procreation of a new life. And what God has joined together, let not man separate! The spouses must always keep these two ends united, not only habitually, but in each and every one of their sexual unions. And certainly “the grace of Christ gives to spouses the real capacity to fulfill the whole truth of their conjugal love” (John Paul II, June 5, 1987). This is the teaching always upheld by the great apostolic Encyclicals –Casti connubii, Humanæ vitæ, Familiaris consortio, etc.–, and taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
John Paul II: “Paul VI, in qualifying the act of contraception as ‘intrinsically evil,’ intended to teach that the moral norm admits of no exceptions: no personal or social circumstance has ever been able, is able, or will ever be able to render such an act ordered in itself,” licit (November 12, 1988).
2.- And what about when one of the spouses is infected with a very grave and contagious disease (e.g. Ebola, AIDS)? In this case it is not licit for the spouses to carry out the conjugal sexual union, for it is neither licit to place the spouse’s life in grave danger, nor licit to avoid –or rather diminish– that danger by the use of contraceptives. For the spouses, only conjugal sexual acts are licit. And those acts that eliminate by mechanical or chemical means the possibility of the transmission of life are not conjugal acts, but contrary to the nature and the truth of marriage.
The sick spouse, therefore, cannot licitly demand the conjugal self-giving. And the healthy spouse is not obliged to accede to that request if it is made, for no one is obliged to risk his life. He may, nevertheless, accede to it, even at the risk of his life, if very grave reasons –the continuance of the marriage, the support of the children, etc.– so advise him. I return to this topic in point 4.
The Vademecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life says that “special difficulties are presented by cases of cooperation in the sin of a spouse who voluntarily renders the unitive act infecund” (no. 13), and it indicates the motives, ways, and limits that can make such cooperation licit (Cardinal López Trujillo, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, February 12, 1997).
3.- The extra-marital sexual union is a grave sin, which is aggravated by the use of contraceptives. It is a long-standing traditional doctrine that the sin of fornication is aggravated when the sexual act is performed against nature, that is, by rendering procreation impossible(St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II, 154, 1 and 12). When God made marriage, creating man and woman, he created the sexual act in its own proper marital form, as a mutual gift of total and definitive love, and as a possible source of life, which may not be blocked by contraceptive acts: that is what the sexual act is. According to this, fornication is a horrible parody, a sacrilegious profanation of the sexual act, and if it is performed in a contraceptive manner, worse still. Contraceptive fornicators destroy in their act the meaning of indissoluble unitive love; but they also destroy its possible procreative end, by using contraceptives. Thus, less guilty before God is the one who sins accepting the natural consequences of his evil act than the one who avoids those consequences he deems troublesome, in order to be able to sin more easily or for other ends. The act of lust, performed in that way, deviates still further from the right natural order.
Contraceptive fornication, moreover, as historical experience clearly confirms, helps toward the unlimited multiplication of acts of fornication. It is not to fall into a consequentialism reprehensible in morality to take into account the norm of discernment given by Christ: “by their fruits you shall know them” (Matthew 7:20).
–Now then, there is a qualitative difference between the marital sexual union and the extra-marital sexual union. Fornication, not to mention rape, even though mechanically they perform an act similar to that of the conjugal sexual union, are qualitatively distinct actions. It can be said that they are against nature, that is, against what the Creator did in creating man and woman, united forever in marriage, in a free love open to life.
It does not seem, then, something indisputable that what is “intrinsically evil” in the conjugal union must be “intrinsically evil,” in an equal and necessary way, in other degraded forms of sexual union. Some argue, specifically, that this moral doctrine is not directly taught in the apostolic Magisterium, since whenever, in its documents, it declares contraception “intrinsically evil,” it does so within the framework of “the conjugal union.”
The Church, indeed, teaches that each “marriage act must in itself remain open to the transmission of life” (HV 11). “This doctrine, many times expounded by the Magisterium, is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and which man may not break on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning” (HV 12). The Magisterium always speaks, indeed, of the obligation to maintain openness to life –that is, it absolutely rejects contraception– in the conjugal acts. Now then, although this objection is considerable, I understand that it can be sufficiently answered.
–The apostolic Magisterium has already manifested itself in the fact that it never corrected as false the doctrine that contraception aggravates the sin of the extra-marital sexual act, this being widely taught by the Catholic doctors of the Church. It is not admissible that what for many centuries Tradition has condemned unanimously, one day the apostolic Magisterium should permit it. “The Church of the living God is the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). She and her doctrine are like a tree, which grows remaining ever faithful to itself, in perfect continuous homogeneity. But some declarations of the apostolic Authority may also be cited, in this case from Spain:
The Spanish Episcopal Conference, in a Press Note on AIDS and the condom (January 19, 2005), summarized the conversation held between the Secretary General of the Spanish Episcopal Conference, Fr. Juan Antonio Martínez Camino, and the Minister of Health and Consumer Affairs, Ms. Elena Salgado, analyzing the methods used in the fight against AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. The Note concluded by saying (the emphases are mine):
“This declaration must be understood in the sense of Catholic doctrine, which holds that the use of the condom implies an immoral sexual conduct. For this reason, the Church collaborates effectively and rationally in the prevention of AIDS by promoting the education of persons toward conjugal love that is faithful and open to life, thereby seeking to avoid improper and promiscuous relations, which give rise to the so-called health “risk situations.” In accordance with these principles it is not possible to advise the use of the condom, since it is contrary to the morality of the person. The only truly advisable thing is the responsible exercise of sexuality, in keeping with the moral norm. Consequently, contrary to what has been asserted from various quarters, it is not true that the doctrine of the Church on the condom has changed.”
4.- Using a condom, whether in the conjugal sexual act or in the extra-marital sexual act, can lessen the culpability, as a lesser evil or according to the law of double effect, when there is a grave danger of transmitting a grave disease through the act, such as AIDS or Ebola. This doctrine is certainly not a safe one. Those who hold it argue that if the divine command “you shall not commit impure acts” is in force, it is also a commandment of God “you shall not kill.” In a situation of grave contagious disease, conscience obliges one not to perform the sexual act, both within marriage and, “a fortiori,” outside it. But if it is performed, the use of a contraceptive can lessen the guilt of the act. Two commandments of God would come into conflict in its practical carrying out: “you shall not commit impure acts” and “you shall not kill.”
In any case it is always necessary to recall that recourse to the condom is not only incapable of curbing AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, but notably increases their spread, because of the multiplied promiscuity that contraception occasions. This reality is scientifically proven.
I reiterate that the use of the condom to avoid contagion is not a wholly safe doctrine, at least not in all its justifications, conditions, and limits, for the apostolic Magisterium has never taught it with clear firmness. Nevertheless, trustworthy authors do teach it thus.
Bishop Juan Antonio Reig Pla, the current Bishop of Alcalá de Henares, when he was President of the Subcommission for the Family and Life of the Spanish Episcopal Conference, and Dean of the “John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family,” after reaffirming the evil of fornication, taught some years ago: “Now then, to the sin against chastity there can be added the connotation –again contrary to morality– of provoking the risk of transmitting a disease as harmful as AIDS. In these cases (rapes, adulteries, sexual promiscuity, homosexual relations, and fornication in general), the use of the condom does not turn these always immoral acts into good ones, but its use could diminish somewhat the probability of a further harmful and sinful consequence of an evil act, namely, the placing in serious danger of the health or the life of the other, due, specifically, to the contagion of the AIDS virus or another sexually transmitted disease.
But having said this, “the conclusion IS NOT: the Church says, at last, that one may rape or commit adultery or fornicate or practice sodomy with a condom”; all of this constitutes very grave matter of sin. The conclusion is that one must live in chastity, that is: abstinence before marriage and absolute fidelity, respecting the unitive and procreative aspects, once married” (in the Gaceta onintereconomia.com, reproducing an interview from the magazine Alba, 2005).
It is not stated in that text –and it is no small question– whether this occasional permissiveness regarding the condom extends only to the degraded forms of sexuality, which are enumerated, or also to the sacred conjugal union of marriage.
5.- The use of condoms may be licit as a defense against the aggression of a rape. Although mechanically the sexual acts of a marriage or of a voluntarily consented fornication or of a rape are the same, it is evident that these are in reality diverse actions in their moral entity. A rape can scarcely be considered a human sexual act, for this implies the love and the freedom of those who unite, which are indeed present, even if in a very deficient form, in mutually consented fornication. Therefore, it must rather be considered as a violent and invasive aggression, which may licitly be resisted in legitimate defense. Here it is in no way a matter of a culpable dissociation between unitive love and the possible procreation. Here we are simply faced with a physical aggression rather than with, properly speaking, a sexual act.
Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragán, when he was president of the Pontifical Council for Health, said regarding the liceity of the condom in the face of a rape: “By the commandment ‘you shall not kill’ we are obliged not to kill anyone, but at the same time not to let ourselves be killed, that is, to protect our life. So much is this so, that it is traditional doctrine of the Church, which has never changed, that in order to defend one’s own innocent life one may even go so far as to kill the aggressor. If the aggressor has the Ebola virus, the flu, or AIDS, I must defend myself from AIDS. How do I defend myself? By the most appropriate means. Whatever I judge fit: is it a club? then with a club. If it is a pistol? then with a pistol. With a condom? If it is effective to defend myself, then yes, in this case of unjust aggression” (Zenit February 4, 2005).
6.- The use of condoms may be licit in a homosexual relationship, whether or not there is danger of contagion of a disease. This relationship is certainly of itself gravely sinful. But it stands so against the natural order and against the doctrine of the Church that, above all in cases of contagious disease, nothing counsels against the use of condoms, since these, obviously, 1. can, only to some extent, prevent a harm which will probably occur with repetition, 2. obviously do not impede a possible procreation, and 3. neither would doing without them render more in conformity with nature an act that has nothing to do with human sexuality, since it is absolutely against nature.
7.- I cite below some texts, most of them published in these days, which contain, mixed together, statements that are true, erroneous, or doubtful. I mark in italics those I deem less acceptable. But in reading them let it be noted that at times, on the same occasion, the author speaks on the one hand of the use of the condom in “acts outside marriage,” alluding at once to “a possible contagion” of grave disease, so that he treats in a unified way distinct moral objects, which require different discernments. This lack of distinction is understandable, in the case of interviews or of certain ill-measured occasional writings; but their effects are no less disastrous for that: the confusion of the Christian people; the conviction that nothing is known with certainty; the conclusion of deferring only to one’s own conscience. He who does not distinguish, confuses.
–“If the use of the condom in the use of sexuality outside marriage can prevent disease, then it is less evil (justifiable) that it be used.” “In concrete conduct in this banal use of sex, it may sometimes be better to use the condom”… “Is it better or worse that the conception of children outside the marital sphere be brought about? To me it seems better that they not be conceived. In this sense, and in that of the non-transmission of a disease, it is the situation in which it can do less harm to use a condom than not to use it.”
–Interview: “… in the cases in which neither abstinence nor fidelity have been able to be followed, which is the path the Church wagers on, there exists this last option. A person may make use of the condom in a responsible way so as not to infect nor to produce an evil that harms life. The statements fall within the tradition of the moral theology of the Church. For the latter the sexual act is understood within the context of a conjugal relationship. That is where the morality applies” that the Church teaches.
The interviewer goes on asking: –“So the sin is committed in having sex outside marriage, but not in using the condom when this sin is committed.” He answers: –“Indeed, the condom is a lesser evil that prevents a possible contagion”. Let it be noted that to the clear question a clear answer is given: Indeed. And that at once, already straying from the question, the interviewee appends to this blunt answer “the certain risk of contagion,” which softens the answer, but which departs from the topic in question.
–“Every sexual relation between two persons of the same sex or between a man and a woman not married to each other is contrary to the moral norm, safeguarded by the virtue of chastity. This qualification is not affected by using or not using a condom.”
Those theses do not seem to me in conformity with Catholic Tradition and the apostolic Magisterium. Following that doctrine it may happen, to put it with an example, that a very Christian father of a family should say to his son who goes out partying at night: “Are you already carrying condoms? Do not commit fornication, for the love of God, for it is a mortal sin. Do not let yourself be tempted by some shameless girl, of whom there are so many. But in case you fall into temptation, please carry condoms.” This implies, without doubt, a radical change in the Catholic tradition.
I submit to the judgment of the apostolic Authority all that I have set forth, and to any better-founded doctrine. And should I be corrected in anything with truth, I will give publicity to the correction in this same Catholic medium of communication.
Author: Fr. José María Iraburu
