Using a condom is a lesser evil than transmitting HIV to a sexual partner — even if that means a woman averting a possible pregnancy, the Vatican said Tuesday, signaling a seismic shift in papal teaching as it further explained Pope Benedict XVI's comments.
The Vatican has long been criticized for its patent opposition to condom use, particularly in Africa where AIDS is rampant. But the latest interpretation of Benedict's comments about condoms and HIV essentially means the Roman Catholic Church is acknowledging that its long-held, anti-birth control stance against condoms doesn't justify putting someone's life at risk.
"This is a game-changer," said the Rev. Jim Martin, a Jesuit editor and writer.
The news that the use of a condom to prevent infecting one's partner may be applied beyond male prostitutes comes from the Rev. Federico Lombardi:
The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, told reporters Tuesday that he asked the pope whether he intended his comments to only apply to male prostitutes. Benedict replied that it really didn't matter, that the important thing was the person in question took into consideration the life of the other, Lombardi said.
As I said in the comments at The Lead, "And it took the pope only years to come to this conclusion. However, this IS good news, and it is a game-changer.
Still, I think of those who became infected with HIV and those who died during the years while the pope was making up his mind."
UNAIDS estimates that 22.4 million people in Africa are infected with HIV, and that 54 percent — or 12.1 million — are women. Heterosexual transmission of HIV and multiple, heterosexual partners are believed to be a major cause of the high infection rates in Africa.
Why so long and why was it so difficult for the pope to announce the good news? It seems to me that the principle of the two-fold effect could have been applied much earlier to justify the use of condoms to prevent HIV infection.
Monsignor Jacques Suaudeau, an expert at the Vatican's bioethics advisory board, said the pope was articulating the idea in church teaching — long practiced by some church officials with regards to condoms — that there are degrees of evil.
"Contraception is not the worst evil. The church does not see it as good, but the church does not see it as the worst," he told The Associated Press. "Abortion is far worse. Passing on HIV is criminal. That is absolute irresponsibility."
The biggie here is that despite past statements to the contrary, the pope now admits that using condoms helps to prevent the spread of HIV infections.
H/T to Ann Fontaine at The Lead.
My, my, my. This is pretty big news. HUGE, in fact. The snarky side of my says that Rome had to do something with the influx of 50 Anglican Churches and three Anglican bishops. Sorry. Snark off.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth, it's difficult to avoid snark in this instance, because the news comes late (Better late than never!) and nearly by stealth, as an afterthought, very likely because it will profoundly disappoint certain members of the clergy and laity of the RCC, for whom abstinence is the solution for everything unless a couple wants to make a baby.
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering whether the Vatican is about to roll out a new line of papally blessed condoms.
ReplyDeletePaul of course not! Condoms may be lesser, but they are still evil.
ReplyDeleteColors?
What's truly amusing, is listening to all the Popoid flunkies INSIST that NO, nothing has changed! "We've always been at war w/ East Asia!" (as Orwell would recognize)
ReplyDeleteOver at The Lead, I linked to Malvina Reynold's classic social change ballad "God bless the Grass": this announcement, God willing, really IS "the grass which grows thru the crack". Once "harm reduction" has been introduced, we're on our way, inexorably, to blessing! Blessed couples of the same sex! Blessed couples of the opposite sex, who use a condom to "reduce harm" (whether that's not spreading HIV, or not having more kids than they can bear/care for, SANELY)!
[I know, I know. I'm getting ahead of myself. Before Humanae Vitae was, well, diktated, there were such Hopes for "the grass", too. Time will tell...]
Colors? I don't know. Purple for Advent and Lent. White for Christmas and Easter. Red followed by green for Pentecost.
ReplyDeleteOnce "harm reduction" has been introduced, we're on our way, inexorably, to blessing!
ReplyDeleteJCF, I would not go so far as expecting blessing any time soon, but I think now of a woman whose life would be in danger from a pregnancy - the thin-entering wedge, as John Chilton reminded us at The Lead. This exception changes a great deal, IMO.
Paul Powers, liturgical colors, then? I don't know.
Liturgical colors may not be a good idea, after all.
ReplyDeleteLast thing we need is for some closeted gay Anglo-Catholic (if such people exist) to decline to use a condom because he doesn't have one in the right color for that liturgical season.
...closeted gay Anglo-Catholic (if such people exist)....
ReplyDeleteSurely not, Paul - although, I have heard whispers.... But I put no stock in such gossip.
If you say they don't exist, that settles it for me. What about closeted straight Anglo-Catholics? I'm thinking the Jeremy Irons character in Brideshead Revisited might have been one.
ReplyDeleteNot that there would be anything wrong (or intrisically disordered) about either one.
Brideshead Revisited is one of my favorite books in all the world. And the BBC did a fine series. So you think Sebastian and Charles loved each other in that way?
ReplyDeleteI do, too. And there's nothing wrong (or intrinsically disordered) with that. Charles loved Julia, too, but perhaps partly because she and Sebastian were so alike.
I believe the TV adaptation was actually by ITV.
ReplyDeleteAs to the nature of Charles' and Sebastian's relationship, I would describe it as deliciously ambiguous, probably even to them.
Paul, you're right. ITV did the series. It was marvelous. I've read the book several times, and I nearly wore out my video copy of the TV version, so last year I bought the DVD set.
ReplyDelete