Since the publication of the new book-interview of Pope Benedict XVI, “Light of the World: The Pope, The Church and the signs of The Times” by German Journalist Peter Seewald on November 22, 2010, the morality of condoms has become a fresher issue. This is so because; Journalists and commentators have hijacked the words of the Pope to mean a dramatic shift of the Church's traditional teaching on the use of condoms to mean “an approval” of the use of condoms. While this is not precisely the case, it has given us the opportunity to address on the morality of condoms and reaffirm the Church's teaching on this. The question usually would begin from the point: What is the morality of Condoms or better contraceptives? What is the Church's teaching on the use of contraceptive and the reduction of the deadly HIV/AIDS pandemic? What did the Pope actually say lately regarding condoms?
The issue of the morality of condoms is not an isolated issue. It is discussed within the whole-frame work of the topic, contraceptives. A contraceptive is a method, device or pharmaceutical drug that prevents pregnancy. People have been using different forms of contraceptives for centuries. There are device contraceptive like the condom for men and the Intra Uterine Device (IUD) for women. There are also spermicides in the form of a jelly, tablet, suppository or foam; a diaphragm, a cervix cap which must be used with the spermicide, etc. Prescription drugs include birth control pills; injections that last for various amounts of time; a vaginal ring; a patch that is worn on the body, etc. Sterilization for men and women can be considered a contraceptive as well.
The use of contraceptive goes beyond the prevention of pregnancy. This is so because; it invites us to the question of sex,human dignity and moral principles. Again, contraceptives are no longer merely objects of birth control, wherein we talk of a marriage situation, but it now represents a misreading of the purpose of marriage and sexuality at large. Sex it must be re-emphasized is an exclusive preserve for a man and a woman who have given themselves in a lawfully and validly contracted marriage. Sex is created by God for the strengthening of intimacy in marriage and the procreation of children. Therefore, outside of marriage, sex becomes improper and both a grave sin. Within this context, sex outside of marriage thus, becomes an instrument by which an individual vainly gratifies the flesh. Nevertheless, in conformity with the Christian vision of marriage, the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion are absolutely wrong. (HV 14)
Every sexual experience is spiritual. It fulfills the dual function of being unitive and procreative. Thus every conjugal act is meant to be open; to be open to procreation and unity of the love between the spouses. Nature has so placed a rhythm such that, the periods that are procreative are limited, barely 96 hours of the 28 days in the cycle of a woman are fecund or fertile. Therefore, the periods which are fertile are meant to control birth especially when it becomes irresponsible at a particular point to procreate. The fertile days as it were, then, allows the couple generally speaking, a time to renew their desire and to save it from the dullness of sheer habit, while the infertile days gives the opportunity to couples regulating birth an avenue to spiral their love in sexual communion.
Contraception it must be established is not birth control. There are a number of ways to control birth some are morally good and others morally evil. The infertile days are the natural means of the control of birth; hence a study of this is what we call “Natural Family planning”. But there are other morally evil and wicked ways of birth control like abortion, the practice ofwithdrawal method in coitus (sexual intercourse) otherwise called Onanism. Contraception usually involves a choice. First, it is the choice to engage in sexual intercourse and secondly, the choice to circumvent the powers of procreation related to the generation of life. This first is upon the realization that, it is irresponsible to have sex now but I want to be selfish. So, it is the intention in the use of contraceptive that brings out the morality in it. This is precisely the case of condoms. This is why it is called contra-conception or anti-procreation. With this, therefore, condoms are negatively morally grounded. They are built on a wrong intent; one to destroy the procreative faculties; a case of why accepting coitus and at the same time denying it of full realization. It is therefore a morally irresponsible choice.
Apart from the evaluation of the choice, it is one that gives the impression that sex can go on irresponsible. It reduces sexuality to physicality and love to unbridled instinct. Contraceptive-sex debases human dignity because it reduces the individual as a sexual object or a sexual cipher. Contraceptive-sex is not built on love, but one that helps the other person to satisfy selfish ends. Again, it makes sex a game; a game of sexual adventurism and irresponsible parenthood when used within marriage. Contraceptive-sex recognizes that love-making is meant to be open but rather want to close it and render the woman to be infertile. Contraceptive-sex opens the road to marital infidelity and the collapse of morals because of the escapist attitude and means of contracepting. Here, the use of condoms as contraceptive is explainably morally evil.
Be that as it may, condom as an object in itself has a morally neutral status. It is the use that brings in the morality. If one takes a condom and puts his necklace inside, nobody has a problem with that, in which case it would be improper to call it a contraceptive but better a safe. It could be use as water balloons and does not either pose a moral threat. But once it involves a different choice with a negative intent, then the problem starts. But there is a certain sense when condom usage becomes a first step towards moralization and an action in conscience even though when it is not ultimately the solution to the problem. And it is the case of HIV/AIDS.
More practically put, in the case of discordant couples; a situation when one of the couples is HIV infected, when one of the couples uses the condom on infertile days, the choice is not to contracept but to prevent from infecting his partner with the disease while paying the marital debt. The usage of the contraceptive at such a situation is not as contraceptive but as a contra-HIV. In this situation, there is first and foremost an act of charity and also a realization that not everything goes. This step was aimed at protecting life. However, it must be noted that this is not the best solution to this problem. It was against a similar background that the Holy Father in the recent book-interview spoke which has been hijacked to mean an approval. I turn briefly to an evaluation of the words of the Holy Father.
The Pope has emphasized in the past 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”. Condoms refer to a wrong means to achieving a good end. This is so because the problem of Aids is beyond condoms but one first and foremost of the misuse of sex for the most, and this pandemic has had a wildfire spread by the misuse of sex by the unmarried. Common report puts the highest prevalence and vulnerability level to be between 18-25 years. To think of condoms as the moral solution would be promoting sexual promiscuity indirectly without the intent to do so. Nonetheless, in the use of condoms by either a male prostitute or a discordant couple it becomes in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more humane way, of living sexuality; a case of contra-HIV rather than contraceptive.
The point of emphasis is in the intention for usage. Once the intention is morally evil, then the action becomes morally evil. However, condoms do not lie the solution to the whole problem of HIV/AIDS. This understanding reflected by the Pope did not in any way give an approval for the use of Condoms as an instrument for sex, neither, did it change the traditional teaching of the Church on contraceptives or condoms. It must be noted that when the Church wants to bring out an official teaching or make a stand on something, it comes out with an official pronouncement in an Encyclical. This was not the case for the recent misrepresentation of the Pope. In any case, he gave his personal evaluation on the issue of the use of Condoms and in which he says some cases could be tending towards morality and he was never speaking ex cathedra (speaking in the authority of the Pope).
In sum, Condoms represent a wrong way of approaching our sexuality. The sure way of addressing the issue of HIV/AIDS is the gospel of ABSTINENCE for the unmarried and BE FAITHFUL if married. Condoms too, do not present any moral justification for the control of Birth as such a choice involves a moral evil.
No comments:
Post a Comment