2
BISHOP CESARE BONIVENTO PIME
AIDS AND CONDOMS THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH
PASTORAL LETTER TO THE PRIEST OF VANIMO DIOCESE
2001
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1: THE THEOLOGICAL DEBATE ON AIDS AND CONTRACEPTIVES
CHAPTER 2: THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH ON CONTRACEPTION A. Humanae Vitae labeled as ‘fallible’ B. History of the teaching of the Church on contraception 1. Contraception has been Traditionally rejected as contralife 2. The teaching of the Church during 20th century 3. The reaction of the Catholic Bishops to Humanae Vitae 4. The teaching of John Paul II
CHPATER 3: HUMANAE VITAE IS THE TEACHING OF THE ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH
A. The teaching of Humanae Vitae is infallible B. The teaching of the Church on contraception binds us in conscience C. The teaching of Humanae Vitae enlightens us on the ‘Conflicts of duties” D. Contraception is objectively a grave matter
CHPATER 4: ARE CONDOMS ALLOWED IN PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES?
A. Condoms as protection for the uninfected spouse B. Condoms as protection for those having intercourse outside of marriage C. Condoms and those not upholding our moral principles
CHAPTER 5: THE LOVING COMPASSION OF THE CHURCH: TRUTH AND MERCY
CHAPTER 6: CONDOMS CANNOT PROTECT THOSE AT RISK
CONCLUSION: THE PROPHETIC ROLE OF THE CHURCH
4
INTRODUCTION
Dear Fathers,
I am sending you a new Pastoral Letter, especially addressed to you. It is the second one of this kind.
The Pastoral Letter I wrote to you in 1998, and reedited twice in 1999, was on “Contraception and therapeutic sterilization”. The present one is on “AIDS and Condoms: the teaching of the Church.” As you realize these two pastoral letters are very much related, and their connecting point is the authority of “Humanae Vitae.”
I chose the present topic because AIDS and how to fight it, has become such an urgent issue. As you know the answers vary quite a lot from each other, with serious consequences for our pastoral life and especially for the sacrament of Penance, for our preaching, and spiritual direction. The variety of the answers depends very much on the knowledge we have of and the attitude we have towards the Magisterium of the Church, and particularly towards the Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae of Paul VI.
In discussing topics like whether contraceptives like condoms are licit in the fight against AIDS we must be very compassionate. However in order to show the true compassion of the Church, we must not neglect the mind and teaching of the Magisterium of the Church. If we do not give it the right place, our theology becomes a personal opinion, and our priestly ministry sterile, and our compassion harmful to souls.
This is why in the title of this Pastoral letter I am emphasizing the attention we must give to the teaching of the Church on this matter.
Obviously this booklet is not a treatise on this subject: it is simply a ‘memo’ or a reminder of what the Church says and has already said about this in the past, without claiming to be scientific. I hope you will find it useful for your preaching and especially when you are dealing with the faithful in confession or in giving spiritual direction.
This booklet is the expression of my great affection to all of you, and of my support to you in carrying out your invaluable priestly ministry.
+ Cesare Bonivento PIME Bishop of Vanimo 22 April 2001 Feast of the Divine Mercy 5
CHAPTER 1
THE THEOLOGICAL DEBATE ON AIDS AND CONTRACEPTIVES
Right now, the world is facing an incredible plague: the HIV virus. We have now been afflicted with it for 20 years. Statistics say that almost twenty million have died of AIDS, and forty million are now fighting to survive it. Certainly in a few years time most of the people now infected by the HIV virus will be dead. Despite the efforts of those committed to fight AIDS, the situation is not improving at all. Recently the rate of infection has skyrocketed; it seems that more than five million people were infected last year. How many in 2001? How long will it take before we are able to defeat such a plague? No one knows.
Presently the HIV virus is causing a lot of problems not only for health reasons, but also economic reasons. Some developing countries especially in Africa are being decimated, and their economic power is being jeopardized. And since we are living in the era of globalization, their financial crisis also affects the stability of the rich countries. Therefore all governments are on full alert.
Obviously under such circumstances, all the means are welcomed and used by these governments to fight AIDS. Even those means whose effectiveness is overestimated by world propaganda, as in the case of contraceptives especially condoms. The enormous economic interest in them is the main motivation in convincing people to use condoms.
It is also understandable that those who are worried about the spread of the HIV virus, and those who have hidden interests, put pressure on the Church to get her support for the use of condoms. Unfortunately, when they realize that the Church denies such a support, they ridicule her to the extent of accusing her of being responsible for the life of millions of people.
The official stance of the Holy Father and the College of the Bishops on condoms, as preventatives from the HIV virus is very clear: The Catholic Church teaches that contraception is degrading the dignity of marriage, consequently it is intrinsically wrong. In such a vision condoms are not allowable even though they are meant to fight and to curb the spread of the HIV virus. John Paul II has repeated numerous times the teaching of the Church on contraception and prevention of AIDS. It is sufficient to recall what he told the International Conference on AIDS on 15 November 1989: “It is extremely harmful to the dignity of the person, and therefore it is morally illicit to support as AIDS prevention any method which violates the authentically human sense of sexuality, and is a palliative for those deep needs which involve the responsibility of the individuals and of society and right reason cannot admit that the fragility of the human condition – instead 6 of being motive for greater care – be used as a pretext for yielding to a way of moral degradation.” 1
As for those who in the Catholic Church work at different levels of responsibility to fight the HIV virus, we have different stands on this subject. We can summarize these as follows: even though everybody is convinced that the best way to fight the spread of the HIV virus is chastity before marriage, and fidelity within marriage, the attitude varies when one deals with special cases e.g.: the case of protecting the uninfected spouse, or of pre-marital or extra-marital sex, or of homosexuals, or of peoples not upholding our Christian principles.
In these cases we have some people faithfully following the teaching of the Church on contraception therefore not even considering condoms as a means to fight the HIV virus. But we also have other people who are sincerely worried for the fast spread of the HIV virus, and allow the use of condoms for various reasons as follows:
• Humanae Vitae is not infallible, therefore, with due respect for the teaching of the Pope, in case of doubt one can follow one’s conscience, especially when one is facing a conflict of duties. • Condoms can be considered as a therapeutic means, therefore one can refer to the principle of double effect and of the lesser evil to allow them. • Contraception is only matter of venial sins. • Humanae Vitae is presenting only an ideal, which can be, achieved little by little, without feeling guilty when it is not immediately possible. • Extra-marital intercourse and homosexual intercourse are already wrong in themselves; so contraception does not add anything to them; therefore condoms can be used. • We are not entitled to impose our way on those who do not share our moral principles.
It is not easy to be unanimous in this matter at the present time. One proof is the recent meeting organized by the Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands Bishops Conference at Goroka on February 12/15 2001 in order to help all our Dioceses find a theological consensus on this matter and to act accordingly. During this meeting a pastoral letter of Bishop Cullinane issued on 1993 with the title of “Life-giving Love” was particularly mentioned.
Actually to differ in such a matter is no small thing. I feel obliged to help you properly evaluate these moral problems. To teach or to accept that the use of condoms is morally licit “in some particular circumstances”, instead of showing the loving compassion of the Church, affects many aspects of her life as follows:
1 Cf: “L’Osservatore Romano”, ed. English, 4 December 1989, p. 3.
7
• The ecclesial communion: because we create a contradiction between the teaching of the Holy Father and of the Episcopal College at large, and our own teaching with the consequence of grave scandal for the Christian people. • The pastoral initiatives of the local Churches. If we are not unanimous in following the official teaching of the Church and if some of us support something that the Church condemns, we risk giving contradictory pastoral guidelines, and causing great scandal among the people, and we put ourselves against each other. • The real good of the souls. No spiritual good can come to souls by doing something that, according to the teaching of the Magisterium, is evil. The sacrament of confession risks becoming a source of disunity among the clergy and a contradiction of our priestly identity. In fact we are allowed to hear confession, not in order to give personal opinion, but only the official teaching of the Church. Instead we risk administering the Sacrament of reconciliation against the mind of the Church, and of Jesus Christ himself, whom we really represent in administering such a Sacrament. • People’s physical well-being. It is well known that the use of condoms cannot protect a person with high risk sexual behavior and much less the uninfected spouse; as for the uninfected spouse, it has been statistically proved that by using condoms he/she will get it in a short while, suppose he/she is not already infected at the moment of discovering the infection of his/her spouse. 2 Why then advise him/her to follow such a harmful way for the body? • The prophetic witness of the Church. If we do not pay attention, the world’s mentality will pervade and change our teaching, and instead of spreading the Good News, little by little we accept the common mentality according to which the greatest moral values must be sacrificed to the altar of physical health. This is in great contradiction to the evangelical message. Consequently by forgetting or not supporting the real teaching of the Church, we will find that it is harder and harder for us to proclaim the sanctity of marriage, and to inspire chastity and purity in those who are not married, especially young people.
With this booklet I would like to focus on some special moral problems related to the HIV virus, which are currently being debated, especially in the Pacific area. I would like to give you the basic elements in order to reach a pastoral conclusion, in harmony with the teaching of the Catholic Church. These problems are as follows:
• Is the use of condoms, as protection for the uninfected spouse, licit? • Is it licit to advise the use of condoms to those having intercourse outside marriage and to homosexuals? • Should we abstain from discouraging the use of condoms in those not upholding our Christian principles?
To reach such a goal, I will examine the following points: v The teaching of the Church on contraception. ( cf. Chapter 2)
2 Cf. Chapter 6. 8 v The continuity between the teaching of the Church on contraception and Humanae Vitae. (cf. Chapter 3) v The theological arguments, which aim at justifying the use of condoms in the above mentioned cases. (cf. Chapter 4).
CHAPTER 2
THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH ON CONTRACEPTION
A. HUMANAE VITAE LABELED AS ‘FALLIBLE’
The disappointment and the cool reception, which Humanae Vitae received when it was first published in 1968 are well known. The world was prepared to welcome the endorsement to the famous ‘pill’. Instead Paul VI taught in his Encyclical that any kind of contraception is morally wrong and therefore illicit. In order to summarize its teaching, it is sufficient to mention two points of the Encyclical Letter.
First of all No. 14 in which Paul VI totally rejects all artificial methods of regulating birth: “Therefore we base our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when we are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of controlling the birth of children. Equally to be condemned, as the Magisterium of the Church has affirmed on various occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. Similarly 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.” (Humanae Vitae 14)
Secondly No. 12 in which Paul VI speaks about the reason why contraception must be totally rejected, it means the inseparable aspects of the conjugal act; union and procreation, which contraception affects: “The doctrine that the Magisterium of the Church has often explained is this: there is an unbreakable connection between the unitive and the procreative meaning (of the conjugal act), and both are inherent in the conjugal act. This connection was established by God, and Man is not permitted to break it through his own volition” (HV 12). By that Paul VI taught us that any attempt to separate the two essential aspects are forbidden and illicit.
The teaching of Humanae Vitae is very clear. This is why it met such strong opposition. However we have to admit that, even though Humanae Vitae is extremely clear in rejecting all artificial methods of regulating birth, and even though one has the greatest 9 respect for the teaching of Paul VI, it is certain that Humanae Vitae does not present its teaching as given ex cathedra. In other words one can apparently argue about the infallible teaching of Humanae Vitae. This is why some people conclude as follows: Since Humanae Vitae is not infallible because it is not ex cathedra, in the case of a conflict of duties, one is free to follow one’s conscience.
Such a theological position is quite common among those who find difficult to follow the teaching of Humanae Vitae. As an example, we quote Jack Dominian, who in his book “Sexual integrity. The answer to AIDS” presents his own personal attitude towards Humanae Vitae. He writes: “It is sufficient to say that the ‘clear theological consensus today maintains that in the area of morality the Magisterium has never exercised its official teaching authority in an infallible way by means of any solemn definition issued either by a pope or by the college of bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council’ (V.J. Genovesi, sj, in Pursuit of Love. The ban on contraceptives belongs to the category of authentic fallible church teachings and that means that responsible dissent is a duty for those Catholics who, in conscience, believe that the church must ultimately develop its teaching further.” 3
Considering the attitude of some catholic towards Humanae Vitae, it is necessary to stress that the excessive emphasis that all of them put on the dogma of infallibility, undermines the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. In other words some people are used to stressing the importance of the infallible teaching ex cathedra of the Pope, in order not to accept another teaching given by the Church, which does not present itself as given ex-cathedra or infallibly. Sometimes one speaks in a way as to say that if a pontifical teaching is not given ex-cathedra, it is therefore fallible, and consequently it can be debated and possibly corrected. Actually the teaching of a Pope reflecting the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church is infallible as much as that given ex- cathedra. It is the case of the teaching of Humanae Vitae, which is to be held infallible, as much as the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary to heaven in body and soul since it pertains to the Ordinary Magisterium. Pazhayampallil says: “The encyclical “Humanae Vitae” is not an “ex cathedra” pronouncement. However the doctrine of the immorality of contraception is infallibly taught by the Ordinary Magisterium….. The Bishops of the whole world who remained in communion with one another and with the pope in their capacity as the official teachers of faith and morals for the beginning of the Christian era till at least 1962 agreed in one judgement on the immorality of contraception, to be definitively held by all the faithful… The authors John C. Ford and Germain Grisez in their well documented and long article of 54 pages confirm this. 4 An evidence of all this is also the work of moral theology and canon law generally in use in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. John Ford and Grisez cite 42 different manuals that were most commonly used in the various seminaries of the world. These text books were authorized by the bishops for use in seminaries and thus for the training of confessors who communicated catholic moral teaching to the faithful in the confessional, in premarital instructions, in the preaching of
3 Cf. Jack Dominian, Sexual Integrity, The answer to AIDS, p. 99, Bulckburn, Australia, 1988. 4 Cf. Ford John and Grisez Germain, Contraception and the infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium, in “Theological Studies”, June 1978, p. 258-312 10 missions, and so on. As authorized agents of the bishops –during centuries in which the bishops were careful not to share their teaching authority with theologians whose views they did not accept – these approved authors teaching in their manuals exercised in a real, though mediate way the teaching authority of each and every bishop who sent his seminarians into seminaries in which these manuals were required text books.” 5
Now to prove that H.V. is only echoing the ordinary teaching of the Church, it is sufficient to go briefly through the history of the ecclesiastical Magisterium. The topic of contraception does not come about in 1968 for the first time; it is present in the history of the Church since the first century.
B. HISTORY OF THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH ON CONTRACEPTION
1. Contraception was traditionally rejected as contralife
As in other areas of faith and morals, the Church’s formal condemnation of contraception became more or less prominent, as the practice of interfering with conception was more or less prevalent among the faithful.
While the teaching was always there, and already there, before some explicit pronouncement on the subject was made, the Magisterium expressed itself with vigor whenever the need arose because Catholics were being pressed by contrary reasons to abandon the Church’s authorized doctrine.
The list of such declarations would be endless. In country after country and in every century, bishops and councils have forbidden “contraceptive potions,” “herbs or other agents so you will not have children,” “spiring the seed in coitus,” “coitus interruptus,” “poisons of sterility,” “avoiding children by evil acts,” “putting material things in the vagina,” and “causing temporary or permanent sterility.” These and similar statements occur in ecclesiastical documents before the end of the thirteenth century. 6
Christian Tradition. Given the widespread contraceptive practice of the first century of the Christian era, euphemistically referred to as “using magic” and “using drugs,” it is logical to see in the New Testament prohibition of mageia and pharmakeia an implicit condemnation of contraception. This is especially true, when the contexts (Ga. 5:20) refer to sins against chastity. 7
The Didache, which explicitly condemned abortion, also implicitly condemned contraception. The early Christians were told in four successive precepts: “You shall not
5 Cf. Pazhayampallil Thomas, Pastoral Guide, Vol. II, p.1171-1172, Bangalore, 1997 6 Cf. Living a Christian Life, Chapter 8, Question E. 7 Cf. The Catholic Catechism. Part Two: Morality and the Spiritual Life - X. Commandments of God. Church’s Teaching Authority. 11 use magic. You shall not use drugs. You shall not procure abortion. You shall not destroy a newborn child” 8 Records from the practices of those times tell us that the people would first try some magical rites or resort to sorcery to avoid conception. If this failed, they would use one or another of the medical contraceptives elaborately described by Soranos. If notwithstanding a woman became pregnant, she would try to abort. And if even this failed, there was always the Roman law that permitted infanticide.
Before the end of the second century, Clement of Alexandria wrote the masterful catechetical treatise Paidagogos. It reflects a very balanced attitude toward marriage. On the one hand, Clement defended marriage and marital intercourse as good and holy. Thus he said that marital “love tends toward sexual relations by its very nature,” and “sometimes nature denies them (husband and wife) the opportunity to perform the marriage act so that it may be all the more desirable because it is delayed”. On the other hand, he said the Church is adamant on the right use of conjugal relations: “To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, which we should take as our instructor”9
In succeeding decades, Justin the Martyr and Origen, Lactantius St. Ephrem, and Epiphanius, Ambrose and Jerome, John Chrysostom and Augustine repeated the Church’s stand on contraception. It was wrong because it imitated the malpractice of the pagans; it placed carnal pleasure before the love that wants children.
St. Augustine condemned contraception. He writes “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onam, the son of Judah, did this and the Lord killed him for it.” 10 St. Augustine does not hesitate to say that the woman who take drinks to prevent conception commits murder.” 11 St. Augustine’s teaching which was a synthesis of the doctrine of the fathers was accepted by the Church and was preserved for a thousand years. 12
One document out of many is worth noting because it is so concise and states in clearly distinct terms what has always been the Church’s mind. The Decretals of Pope Gregory IX13 (1148-1241) are a summary of the Church’s legislation in the lifetime of Thomas Aquinas. Like the Summa Theologica, the Decretals summarize the Church’s whole moral tradition. Three things are especially significant about the decree on contraception.
• It unambiguously identifies contraception with any action taken to prevent generation, conception, or birth.
8 The Didache II, 2. 9 Saint Clement of Alexandria, Paidagogos II, 9-10. 10 P.L. t. 40, De conjugiis adulterinis, lib. II, caput XII, p. 479. 11 St. Augustine, Sermo 22, De Castitate Conjugali: “Sed nec alias diabolicas potiones mulieres debent accipere. Mulier autem quaecumque fecerit hoc per quod iam non possit concipere, quantoscumque parere poterat, tantorum homicidiorum se ream esse cognoscat” (P.L. t. 39, p 2298) 12 Cf. Noonan John T., Contraception: A History of its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists, Cambridge, 1966, p. 9. 13 Gregoy IX, Decretals V, 12,5. 12
• It distinguishes between taking a drug out of lust (instead of abstaining from intercourse) and taking a drug for hostile motives. • It calls all of these actions homicidal, in the technical sense of intending to destroy life at any stage of the vital process.
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) writes in “The Summa against Gentiles: “God has care for everything in relation to its good. Now, for every good being good consists in attaining its own purpose; and evil lies in moving away from the due purpose. And this holds good both for the whole and for its parts so that each part of man and every act of his must reach the due purpose. Well, human sperm, although it is superfluous as regards the preservation of the individual, is necessary however, for the preservation of the species… Therefore the ejaculation of sperm must be so ordained that there may follow from it both the begetting and the upbringing of offspring. It is clear from this that all ejaculation of sperm, produced in such a way that begetting cannot follow from it, is contrary to man’s good. And if this is done deliberately, it is necessarily a sin. …. Therefore after the sin of murder with which human nature already existing is destroyed, there comes in the second place this kind of sin, with which the begetting of human nature is prevented.” 14
Contraception and abortion have often been condemned together. For example, in dealing with marriage, the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches that “married persons who, to prevent conception or procure abortion, have recourse to medicine, are guilty of a most heinous crime, for this is to be considered an impious conspiracy of homicides.” 15
In the late sixteenth century, Sixtus V passed a series of laws to curb the immorality of his day. Among these laws solemnly promulgated by the Pope was one that simultaneously covered abortion and contraception16.
Coming closer to our day, during the pontificate of Pius IX (1846-78), at least five decisions were handed down by the Holy See with regard to contraception. One of these was made by the Holy Office and approved by the Pope. It touches on one type of contraception (withdrawal), but in doing so it clarified two facts:
• that onanism is against the natural law, • that confessors have a duty to inquire about contraception if they have good reason to suppose that it is being used. 17
The foregoing included a quotation from Innocent XI’s censure of the theory that sexual immorality belongs only to divine positive law (i.e., God wills it, but not to divine natural law) that is crucially important. If contraception were not wrong because it contradicts human nature, some could argue (as they do) that changed circumstances might justify
14 Cf. Cardinal Luigi Ciappi, Art. Christian morality and scientific humanism, in “L’Osservatore Romano”, ed. English, 25 may 1978, p. 8. 15 Catechismus ex decreto Ss. Concilii Tridentini 2.8.13. 16 Sixtus V, Effrenatum (Oct. 27, 1588). 17 Pio IX, Decision of the Holy Office (May 21, 1851). 13 what was formerly wrong. But no circumstances can justify what is against the very nature of man; so that wherever you have human beings you have the prohibition of certain conduct, like contraception, abortion, and infanticide.
2. The Teaching of the Church during 20th century
By the time of Pius XI, promoters of contraception had successfully crossed the barrier of keeping the subject from the open forum. In one country after another the clandestine practice became public knowledge. The first international birth-control congress was held at Paris in 1900, and by 1930 the first official teaching of a Christian denomination in favor of contraception was issued by the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican churches of the world. This is why he wrote his Encyclical Letter “Casti Connubii” condemning contraception. His words are: “…the Catholic Church to whom God has entrusted the defence of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through our mouth proclaims anew:…any use whatever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offence against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such acts are branded with the guilt of a grave sin. We admonish, therefore, priests who hear confessions and others who have the care of souls, in virtue of our supreme authority and in our solicitude for the salvation of souls, not to allow the faithful entrusted to them to err regarding this most grave law of God; much more, that they keep themselves immnune from such false opinions, in no way conniving in them. If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, lead the faithful entrusted to him into these errors or should at least confirm them by approval or by guilty silence, let him be mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his sacred trust, and let him take to himself the words of Christ: ‘They are blind and leaders of the blind and if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit.’” 18
According to Pius XI, no reason whatever, even the gravest, can make what is intrinsically against nature become conformable with nature and morally good. The conjugal act is of its very nature designed for the procreation of offspring. Therefore, those who in performing it deliberately deprive it of its natural power and efficacy, act against nature and do something, which is shameful and intrinsically immoral.
Pius XI added nothing new to the constant tradition of the Catholic Church “to whom God has committed the task of teaching and preserving morals”19 But he did bring to the surface what some were challenging, that contraception is “intrinsically immoral” so that no situation could objectively change what is sinful into something morally indifferent.
18 Pius XI, Casti Connubii, Ed. The Paulist press, no. 56-57. 19 Ibidem, no. 54, 56. 14
Fr. Joseph Creusen, S.J., in one of his articles which he published on conjugal onanism, shows that the hierarchies of Belgium. Germany, France, Spain, the United States and England were already teaching the same doctrine. 20
Pius XII expressly condemned all forms of contraception. In his address to a convention of Italian Catholic midwives, on October 1951, he spoke thus: “Our predecessor, Pius XI, of happy memory, in his encyclical “Casti Connubii,” 31 December 1930, solemnly proclaimed anew the fundamental law governing the marital act and conjugal relations; that any attempt on the part of the married people to deprive this act of its inherent force and to impede the procreation of new life, either in the performance of the act itself or in the course of the development of its natural consequences, is immoral; and no alleged ‘indication’ or need can convert an intrinsically immoral act into a moral and lawful one. This precept is as valid today as it was yesterday; and it will be the same tomorrow and always, because it does not imply a precept of human law but is the expression of a law which is natural and divine.” 21
Pius XII reiterated this teaching on many other occasions. It is sufficient to remember the circular letter sent by the Holy Office on 21 April 1955 to the American Bishops: “The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office is seriously alarmed about the ever growing practice of so called artificial onanism, which consists in having recourse to the use of various chemical devices to rob the natural act of generation of its power to beget new life. In its solicitude to safeguard the sanctity of married life, it directs the attention of all Ordinaries to the duty of exercising constant vigilance, lest in speech or in writing in this regard, the consciences of the faithful become perverted and purity of morals be contaminated by this depraved vice” 22
20 Cf. Ford John and Kelly Gerard, Contemporary Moral Theology, Vol. II, p. 260-261. It is interesting to know that already in 1932 Fr. Joseph Creusen wrote that any future change in this teaching was impossible (cf. in ibidem p.261), and he held that the doctrine enunciated in the encyclical is infallible. He attributed the mark of infallibility to the doctrine because it was the constant Magisterium of the universal Church. Other authors held that the celebrated passage in ‘Casti Connubii’ is an ‘ex cathedra’ pronouncement. Fr. Capello writes: “These solemn words uttered in token of her divine ambassadorship obviously are an expression of infallible teaching authority, that is, a definition ex cathedra’ (Cf.: De Sacramentis, vol. V, De matrimonio, Marietti, 1961, p. 751-752. Piscetta Gennaro says: “By these solemn words (regardless of what others may say to the contrary) the Supreme Pontiff by infallible definition presents his decision. (Cf. Elementa Theologiae Moralis, vol. VII, p. 173, footnote 2, Torino, 1940.) Fr. Ter Haar writes: “In our opinion, this passage of the encyclical contains a definition “ex cathedra’ – the Pope is using his supreme and extraordinary teaching authority and binding all Christians to accept the doctrine.” (Cf. Ter Haar Franciscus, Casus Conscientiae, vol II, no. 136, p. 153-154, Torino, 1944.) Arthus Vermeersch in his commentary on the encyclical says that though the precise form of words used by Pius XI is somewhat unusual for a papal definition, nevertheless, the Pope wishes to put the stamp of his own infallible teaching authority on the traditional teaching of the Church. (Cf. Ford John nad Kelley Gerard, op. Cit., vol II, p. 263-264.) Even Marcellinus Zalba, while not decisively excluding an ‘ex cathedra’ pronouncement, says that the doctrine is infallible because it is the constant, universal and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. (Cf: Zalba Marcellinus, Theologiae Moralis Compendium, vol. I, Matriti, p. 827, footnote 70, Matriti, 1958); Cf. Pazhayampallil Thomas, Pastoral Guide, Vol. II, p.1161-1163, Bangalore, 1997 21 “AAS”, 43 (1951) 843. 22 Cf. L. Bouscaren, The Canon Law Digest, Vol. V. Milwauke, 1963, p. 512. 15
Pazahayampallil maintains that: “Prior to the mid-nineteenth century never had it been admitted by a Catholic theologian that it is licit to have complete sexual intercourse in which procreation was deliberately excluded.” 23
According to Marcellinus Zalba the bishops of Belgium in 1909, those in Germany in 1913, those in France in 1919, those of United States in 1919, those in India in 1957, those of Canada in 1958, those of Formosa in 1961, those of France again in 1961, all were unanimous in teaching that contraception is immoral. 24
John Ford and Gerald Kelly wrote the following without hesitation in 1964: “The entire Christian tradition, until this century has always rejected it (contraception).” 25 And John F. Kippley wrote in 1970: “It is fair to say that in various ways the question of contraception has been with us since the beginning of Christianity and that for twenty centuries the Church has provided a constant answer forbidding contraception regardless of how the question was raised. For one who believes that the Church is led by the Holy Spirit, it is also quite believable that this constant teaching of the Church is the fruit of the Spirit.” 26
Finally we have to quote VAT. II. In Gaudium et Spes Vat. II analyzes the situation of married people ‘in a position where the number of children cannot be increased, at least for the time being’. Considering the various proposals in order to solve this problem, on No. 51 it says: “Some of these proposed solutions to these problems are shameful and some people have not hesitated to suggest the taking of life: the Church wishes to emphasize that there can be no conflict between the divine laws governing the transmission of life and the fostering of authentic love…. When it is a question of harmonizing married love with responsible transmission of life, it is not enough to take only the good intention and the evaluation of motives into account; the objective criteria must be used, criteria drawn from the nature of the human person and human action, criteria which respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; all this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is seriously practiced. In question of birth regulation the sons of the Church, faithful to these principles, are forbidden to use methods disapproved of by the teaching authority of the Church in its interpretation of the divine law.”
3. The reaction of Catholic Bishops to Humanae Vitae
It is very important that we know the reaction of the Catholic Bishops to the Encyclical Humanae Vitae issued by Paul VI. Especially because sometimes one has the impression
23 Cf.Pazahayampallil Thomas, Pastoral Guide Vol. II, pp. 1159, Bangalore, 1997; cf. Noonan John T. Jr., Contraception: A History of its Treatment by the catholic Theologians and Canonists, Cambridge, 1966, p. 438. What was debated was whther “amplexus reservatus” was permissible (ibidem). 24 Cf.Zalba Marcellinus, art. Circa ordinem rectum in usu matrimonii episcopi per orbem quid tradiderint, in “Periodica”, LVI (1967), p. 61-87. 25 Cf.Ford John C. / Kelly Gerald, Contemporary Moral Theology, Vol II, Marriage Questions, Westminster, p. 170, 1964 26 Cf.Kippley John F., Covenant, Christ and Contraception, New York, 1970, p. xvii; p. xxvii. 16 that Humanae Vitae has been rejected by a large number if not by the majority of the Episcopal Conferences. Instead if we go through the reports available so far about those reactions we have the opposite impression. The teaching of Paul VI has been supported by the vast majority of the Episcopal conferences. It is useful to read what John Ford and Germain Grisez wrote in 1978: “ We know of no collections of this vast body of material. However, reports at the time in “L’Osservatore Romano” and in various news services indicated that almost all of these statements affirmed and many of them defended the teaching reaffirmed by the encyclical. Only a very few of these statements by individual Catholic Bishops contained negative reactions, and even fewer went so far to contradict what Humanae Vitae reaffirmed. Statements also were issued by or on behalf of various national hierarchies and these statements have been collected. If one reviews the collective episcopal statements, it becomes clear that most of this body of teaching is consonant with the teaching of ‘Humanae Vitae’…. None of the episcopal statements denied the competence of the Magisterium to propose specific moral norms, norms in themselves obligatory, on the morality of contraception. Moreover, none of the episcopal statements explicitly rejects the norms restated in ‘Humanae Vitae’.27
Certainly there were some Episcopal Conferences which tried to mitigate the teaching of Humanae Vitae. To this regard John Ford and Germain Grisez wrote that “Certain of the collective statement qualify the teaching in such a manner as implicitly to contradict it. These qualifications appear in the attempts of certain hierarchies to mitigate pastorally the impact of the affirmation of the traditional teaching. Most of the collective statements do this in ways which neither contradict ‘Humanae Vitae’ nor distort common Catholic teaching upon the obligation of individuals to follow even an erroneous conscience and upon the possibility that subjective factors can and often do mitigate culpability for acts which are objectively grave…The statements which are not fully consonant with “Humanae Vitae’ and with the majority of the episcopal statements harmoniously responding to it also conflict with each other and tend to cancel each other out….Hierarchies which argued directly from the non-definitive character of ‘Humanae Vitae’ to the legitimacy of dissent obviously overlooked the possibility that the teaching is infallible even if the encyclical is not ‘ex cathedra’. In overlooking this, these bishops shared in an erroneous assumption which prevailed at the time. However, the implicit contradiction in 1968 by some bishops of a teaching already infallibly proposed through many centuries takes nothing away from the objective certitude of this teaching…But the concern of bishops to mitigate as much as possible the impact at the pastoral level of received moral teaching perhaps points to the need and the possibility of authentic development with respect with subjective factors which limit culpability. Recent theological discussion, in its abundance and diversity, perhaps contains the seminal ideas required for such development.” 28
As the years went by, the acceptance on the part of the bishops became unanimous. Card. Martini, Archbishop of Milan, in a press conference on the Synod of Bishops, 1980, said: “…on the problem about ‘Humanae Vitae’ it should be noted: the unanimous explicit
27 Cf.: Ford John and Grisez Germain, Contraception and the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, in ‘Theological Studies’, June 1978, p. 308-312. 28 Ibidem. 17 acceptance of the doctrine of Paul VI’s Encyclical. (The importance of this result should be noted by public opinion, because it often mentioned the differences present in the episcopate on the re-affirmed position of Paul VI, in 1968 and in the ensuing period)…” 29
4. The teaching of the John Paul II
Worthy of notice is the perfect continuity of John Paul II’s teaching with Paul VI’s. Everybody knows that one of the greatest highlights of the Pontificate of John Paul II is the protection of life and the sanctity of married life. In such a context John Paul II has spoken innumerable times about the evil of contraception, to the point that nobody can put into doubt the perfect continuity between the teaching of Paul VI and John Paul II. We can summarize his teaching with what he said commemorating the twentieth anniversary of Humanae Vitae: “Paul VI, qualifying the contraceptive act as intrinsically illicit, wanted to teach that it…does not admit exception: no personal or social circumstance was, or is, or will be ever able to make such an act morally good in itself.”30
In accordance with such a strong statement, we can repeatedly find in John Paul II’s teaching the rejection of two main objections to the official teaching of the Catholic Church on contraception.
The first is in regard to abortion, which according to some people could be indirectly aggravated by the attitude of the Church in forbidding contraception. In his Encyclical Evangelium Vitae No. 13 he says: “It is frequently asserted that contraception, if made safe and available to all, is the most effective remedy against abortion. The Catholic Church is then accused of actually promoting abortion, because she obstinately continues to teach the moral unlawfulness of contraception. When looked at carefully, this objection is clearly unfounded. It may be that many people use contraception with a view to excluding the subsequent temptation of abortion. But the negative values inherent in the “contraceptive mentality”—which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal act—are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is conceived. Indeed, the pro-abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church’s teaching on contraception is rejected…But despite their differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree”31.
The second is the accusation that the Catholic Church is responsible for the death of thousands of people by forbidding the use of condoms in the fight against AIDS. Applying the teaching of the Church on contraception to the prevention of HIV virus, John Paul II told the International Conference on AIDS on 15 November 1989: “It is extremely harmful to the dignity of the person, and therefore it is morally illicit to support
29Cf . “L’Osservatore Romano”, ed. English, 3 November 1980, p. 16. 30 Cf. John Paul II, A vent’anni dall’Humanae Vitae, n.5.; Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2370, p. 570, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1994; Cf. Pontifical Council for the Family, Vademecum for Confessors concerning some aspects of the morality of conjugal life, n.4, p. 16-17, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997. 31 John Paul II. The Gospel of Life, Evangelium Vitae, 13. March 25, 1995. 18 as AIDS prevention any method which violates the authentically human sense of sexuality, and is a palliative for those deep needs which involve the responsibility of the individuals and of society and right reason cannot admit that the fragility of the human condition – instead of being motive for greater care – be used as a pretext for yielding to a way of moral degradation.”32
To the youth in Kampala John Paul II said: “Do not be deceived by the empty words of those who ridicule chastity or your capacity for self-control. The strength of your future married love depends on the strength of your present commitment to learning true love, a chastity which includes refraining from all sexual relations outside of marriage. The sexual restraint of chastity is the only safe and virtuous way to put an end to the tragic plague of AIDS which has claimed so many young victims.”33
John Paul II has repeated numerous times the teaching of the Church on contraception and prevention of AIDS.
CHAPTER 3
HUMANAE VITAE SUMMARIZES THE ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH
At the end of this brief historical survey it seems to me that we can draw the following conclusions about the teaching of Humanae Vitae:
A. THE TEACHING OF HUMANAE VITAE IS INFALLIBLE.
From the ancient and recent Magisterium of the Church we come to know that the teaching of the Church on contraception is continuous, clear and solemn, to the point of being classified as Ordinary Magisterium .
Now Vat. II teaches us that the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible. In fact Lumen Gentium no. 25 states: “ Although the Bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do however, proclaim infallibly the doctrine of Christ on the following conditions: namely, when, even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter’s successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely.”
32 Cf. “L’Osservatore Romano”, ed. English, 4 December 1989, p. 3. 33 Cf. Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II, XII, 2, 1989, Citta’ del Vaticano. 19
Such a statement of Lumen Gentium reminds us of what Vat. I states in the Dogmatic Constitution “Dei Filius”: “Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.” 34
The teaching of Vat. II e Vat. I on the Ordinary Magisterium is particularly applicable to the teaching of Paul VI on contraception.
The teaching of Humanae Vitae is nothing else, but the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church on contraception, and as such is infallible. Pazhayampallil says: “The Doctrine that contraception is evil has been proposed with such constancy, with such universality, with such obligatory force, always and everywhere and for many centuries. The Church cannot substantially err in teaching a very serious doctrine of faith or morals through the centuries –even through one century – a doctrine consistently and insistently proposed as one necessarily to be followed in order to attain eternal salvation. The Church could not substantially err through so many centuries –even through one century – in imposing very heavy burdens under grave obligation in the name of Jesus Christ as it would have erred if Jesus Christ does not in fact impose these burdens. The Catholic Church could not in the name of Jesus Christ offer to the vast multitude of the faithful, everywhere in the world, for so many centuries on occasion of formal sin and spiritual ruin on account of a false doctrine promulgated in the name of Jesus Christ. Therefore the Catholic teaching on the immorality of contraception has been infallibly proposed by the Ordinary Magisterium. Any controversy that might arise on the point will take nothing away from its objectively certain truth.”35
We can legittimately conclude that even though Humanae Vitae is not a document given ex cathedra, its teaching pertains to the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, and as such is infallible. This is why it is possible to the “Vademecum for Confessors”, published by the Pontifical Council for the Family to state that: “The Church has always taught the
34 Cf. Denzinger no. 1792 (3011); CF. Pope Paul VI “The Credo of the People of God”, June 30, 1968.“We believe all that is contained in the word of God written or handed down, and that the Church proposes for belief as divinely revealed, whether by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal magisterium”; Cf.: Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: “Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and in a particular way, to the Roman Pontiff as Pastor of the whole Church, when exercising their ordinary Magisterium, even should this not issue in an infallible definition or in a "definitive" pronouncement but in the proposal of some teaching which leads to a better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals and to moral directives derived from such teaching.” Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian”, N.17. May 24, 1990.
35 Cf. Pazhayampallil Thomas, Pastoral guide Vol II, pp. 1172-1173, St. Francisco USA, 1997. Also John C. Ford, S.J. demonstrates in an article published in 1978 that the received Catholic teaching on contraception has been proposed by the ordinary magisterium in a manner, which meets the conditions for infallible teaching articulated by Vatican II: Cf. Christian Moral Principles. Chapter 36, Question B, N.5. Harmony Encyclopedia. 20 intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. THIS TEACHING IS TO BE HELD AS DEFINITIVE AND IRREFORMABLE. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self- giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony)”36.
B. THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH ON CONTRACEPTION BINDS US IN CONSCIENCE
And what about the conscience? Is the conscience bound by the “Authentic teaching of the Church’? The Church is not reticent on this. It states very clearly that the authentic teaching of the Church binds the faithful in conscience. The reason is that such a teaching cannot be given without the assistance of the Holy Spirit. We all are bound to obey the Holy Spirit.
Traditional Moral Theology teaches that one can never act against one’s conscience, when it is certain. However also the ‘certain’ conscience can err. Heribert Jone says: “A ‘certain’ conscience passes judgement without fear of error. …In reality, however, an absolutely certain conscience can still be erroneous.” 37 It can err because our nature has been affected by original sin. Because of it, not only our will became weak, but also our mind became obscure. Jesus came to give us His Grace in order to both strengthen our will and enlighten our mind. This help comes from Him through His Church: it means the Sacraments and the teaching of the Church. Jesus is very clear on these points. This is why the Church has the right to teach us with authority on faith and morals. This is why the faithful have the right and the duty to form their conscience on the teaching of the Church. Haring says: “Conscience is not an oracle which can draw the truth from its own obscure depths or even create it. It is the proper task of conscience to move the will in accordance with the truth of which it is aware and to search for the truth prior to its decision.” 38 Peschke says: “Truth and moral rightness are not autonomous creation of man’s mind and conscience. Rather man is subject to the authority of the truth and must 39 confirm to it.” In 1963 Karl Rahner wrote in Nature and Grace: "And so man has a duty to do everything he can to conform his conscience to the objective moral law, to inform himself and let himself be taught and make himself prepared to accept (how difficult this often is!) instruction from the word of God, the magisterium of the Church and every just authority in its own sphere" 40
By receiving Baptism, the person accepts to be led by Christ and His Church to everlasting life. This is why the baptized have the duty to form their conscience with the authoritative teaching of the Church.
36Cf. Pontifical Council for the Family, Vademecum for Confessors concerning some aspects of the morality of conjugal life, p. 16, Libreria Editirce Vaticana, 1997. 37 Cf. Heribert Jone, Moral Theology, p. 38-39, Maryland, USA, 1956. 38 CF.Bernanrd Haring, The Law of Christ I, p. 148, 1966. 39 Cf. Peschke Karl, Christian Ethics I, p. 243, Manila 1987. 40 Karl Rhaner, Nature and Grace, Dilemmas in the Modern Church, p. 50, London, 1963.
21
This is confirmed by Vat. II. Dignitatis Humanae states: “In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church. The Church is, by will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that Truth which is Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origin in human nature itself” (DH 14).
In the same way Lumen Gentium says: “In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with religious assent of soul. This religious submission of will and of mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. That is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgements made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known chiefly, either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking” (LG 25).
Applying its teaching on conscience, on married life Vat. II states: “Married people should realize that in their behavior they may not simply follow their own fancy but must be ruled by conscience –and conscience ought to be comformed to the law of God in the light of the teaching authority of the Church, which is the authentic interpreter of divine law. For the divine law throws light on the meaning of married love, protects it and leads it to truly human fulfillment.” (GS 51)
The ‘Catechism of the Catholic Church” (CCC) confirms such a teaching when it says: “In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the Light for our path; we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.” (CCC No. 1785)
Also John Paul II intervened recently on this subject. The problem of “Conscience” has been largely treated by Pope John Paul II in his encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” (No. 54- 64). It reminds us of the obligation to form our conscience by obeying the Magisterium. Insisting on that John Paul II is also quoting the Council. He says: ”The words of Jesus also represent a call to form our conscience, to make it the object of a continuous conversion to what is true and to what is good. …Christians have a great help for the formation of conscience in the Church and her Magisterium. As the Council affirms: ‘In forming their consciences the Christian faithful must give careful attention to the sacred and certain teaching of the Church. For the Catholic Church is by the will of Christ the teacher of truth. Her charge is to announce and teach authentically that truth which is Christ, and at the same time with her authority to declare and confirm the principles of the moral order which derive from human nature itself’. It follows that the authority of the Church, when she pronounces on moral questions, in no way undermines the freedom of conscience of Christians…. The Church puts herself always and only at the service of 22 conscience, helping to avoid being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine proposed by human deceit (cf. Eph 4:14), and helping it not to swerve from the truth about the good of man, but rather, especially in more difficult questions, to attain the truth with certainty and to abide in it.” (VS 64)
It is worth noticing also that the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, n. 25, speaks still more clearly on this, since it talks about the teaching of the Church not declared infallible ex cathedra. The Council says: “Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of the divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops’ decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind. This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such a way, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the document in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated”.
Quite recently four Vatican Documents have been issued on this matter. They help us to understand that the faithful are bound to accept and to follow also the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, besides the Extraordinary one. I quote them in a chronological order:
• “Professio Fidei et iusiurandum fidelitatis in suscipiendo officio nomine Ecclesiae exercendo”, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1 March 1989; • “Donum Veritatis”, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 24 May 1990; • ”Ad tuendam Fidem”, Motu Proprio, John Paul II, 18 May 1998. • “Nota doctrinal ilustrativa de la formula conclusiva de la professio Fidei”, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 29 June 1998.
As one realizes, from Vat. II, CCC, Veritatis Splendor and the documents quoted right above we can conclude that we do not have to obey the Church only when its teaching is given ex cathedra, but whenever its teaching is given with ‘authentic teaching authority”. This concept includes the infallible Magisterium given ex- cathedra as well as the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. It is impossible to exclude Humanae Vitae from such a Magisterium. To dismiss Humanae Vitae as non infallible, and therefore not binding on the conscience of the faithful, is erroneous and not acceptable to a true catholic theology and spirituality. Consequently we can say that all the faithful, especially those who are teachers in the Church, have the moral obligation of forming their conscience by accepting such a teaching.
C. THE TEACHING OF HUMANAE VITAE ENLIGHTENS US ON THE “CONFLICTS OF DUTIES” 23
In the aftermath of Humanae Vitae, some people expressed the idea that, even though one is to accept and respect the teaching of Humanae Vitae, he/she has the right to follow one’s conscience, when one is facing a conflict of duties; for instance when it is difficult to harmonize the conjugal love with responsible parenthood or when one is to deal with high risk mothers, and, more recently, when one of the two spouses is infected by HIV virus. At that time such a claim got the support even of some Bishops.
However the official teaching of the Church has never given any support to the so called right to refer to one’s conscience, independently of the Magisterium of the Church, when we are dealing with contraception, not even when one thinks he/she is facing a conflict of duties.
Possibly the reason is that in those cases there is no conflict of duties. By teaching that contraception is intrinsically illicit, the Church teaches that it is evil, and in no circumstances does contraception cease to be evil. Here we are not dealing with a positive command, which can admit exception, if the circumstances change: e.g. the precept of worship on Sunday: common sense says that if one is sick, one is not bound to worship in the Church. Instead here we are dealing with natural law, which has been given by God himself, and is universal and immutable. In other words, contraception is evil, not because the Church decided so, but because it is evil on itself. This is why the Church says that it is intrinsically illicit: it calls it evil because it is so by nature, and it will remain so in all situations and circumstances: like the food that is poisoned. No one is allowed to eat it, because the consequence is death.
Therefore there is conflict of duties when the conscience is indicating two goods, while the acting person can choose only one. The typical case is the mother who is to go to Sunday Mass and at the same time she is to assist her child who is sick at home. It is very easy to solve this case, because the mother spontaneously resorts to what is indicated by the natural law, which has precedence over ecclesiastical law. In any case it is up to her to judge whether the sickness of her child allows her to go to Sunday Mass without neglecting her duty as a mother.
Instead, when we have to choose between an object that is good and another that is bad there is no conflict of conscience, and consequently there is no conflict of duties. Simply because our conscience indicates with certainty what we have to do: e.g. to have a car to help one’s children to go to school is good, however to steal a car in order to help one’s children to go to school is bad. The conscience has no doubt to tell us not to steal a car in those circumstances. There is no conflict of duties in this case. According to the texts of moral theology, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ‘conscience’ is what indicates to us that which is good or bad (or erroneously understood as good or bad) in order to help us to choose good and to reject evil. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says very clearly: “Moral conscience, present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, 24 approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil…..In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right”. 41
The above mentioned cases (the use of contraception inside the marriage to harmonize the conjugal love with responsible parenthood or when have to deal with high risk mothers, and, when one of the two spouses is infected by HIV virus), cannot be considered a conflict of duties, because the conscience, enlightened by the Magisterium has no difficulties about what must be done because it is good, and what must be rejected because it is evil. In fact Vat. II states in Gaudium et Spes no. 51: “…the Church wishes to emphasize that there can be no conflict between the divine laws governing the transmission of life and the fostering of authentic love.”
There is no conflict of duties, firstly because no one has the duty to do evil: to use contraception is evil and no one can claim the freedom of conscience in order to do evil to others or to oneself. Secondly because in all three cases there is an alternative. For the first two cases the alternative is the natural family planning, as for the third the alternative is abstinence. Obviously in order to choose between those alternatives the person needs some other spiritual help: faith in the teaching of the Church, the spirituality of the sanctity of marriage, the spirituality of the Cross, entrusting ourselves to the will of God etc. 42
41 Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1777-1778, p. 438, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1994. 42 We have to remark that the problem of conflicts of duties with the consequent recourse to one’s conscience to solve them, has been underlined particularly by the French Bishops Conference, following the publication of Humanae Vitae. At that time public opinion considered contraceptives very effective; one did not know yet the side effects of some contraceptives. If the French Bishops had known the ineffectiveness of contraceptives at large and the side effects of some of them, possibly they would have solved the problem of conflict of conscience with a greater availability towards the natural methods, and with a greater entrustment to the will of God, which is the true responsible parenthood meant by the Church. It is interesting to read what Fr. Lobo S.J., who himself is supporting the right to follow one’s conscience in some cases, writes about contraceptives: “ According io the teaching of the Church, the use of the natural Method is in itself not a disorder since here there is an objective blocking of the dynamism of the natural act towards procreation. Some recent experiences have shown that this view is not without its practical sense. Contraceptive methods, apart from their technical limitations in each case, have not proved the panacea that they have proclaimed to be. Many, especially among women, have found that they have strong psychological disadvantages. A good many women have felt that they were being used rather than loved in contraceptive intercourse due to the subjective bad disposition of those who have adopted these methods. On the other hand, the natural Method, when practiced with mutual understanding, has proved to be a maturing and cementing experience. One of the authorities on this matter states: “As the partners mature in their love with the passing of years and the growth of their family, the physical act of intercourse comes more and more to express and nourish the love of husband and wife for each other, and the inclination for intercourse to be determined by the desire of each to serve the happiness of the other and the good of the family. Periodic restraint of the desire for physical self-gratification now not only intensifies the delight of intercourse subsequently, but makes the act more truly expressive of this unselfish love. A generous abstinence from intercourse for the sake of the other, though the desire be strong, has a beneficial effect on the marriage, preserving, strengthening and deepening conjugal love. In some marriages the refreshment provided by this self-denial is not merely beneficial, it is an indispensable condition for peace and happines.” (Cf. Lobo George, Moral and Pastoral Questions, pp.203-204, Gujarat, India, 1985.)
25
N.B.: THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ETHICS AND MORALS HAS BEEN REJECTED. According to a new tendency in moral theology, one may appeal to the freedom of conscience in certain cases by referring to the distinction between ethics and morals or moral behavior. According to such a new theological tendency, ethics spell out the rules and moral principles, while morals or moral behavior also implies the application of the principles to concrete situations. And they say that ignoring such a distinction means to lead to legalism and pharisaism. Such a distinction allows one to draw the conclusion we mentioned at the beginning of this pastoral letter about the use of condoms in particular cases as both contraceptive and preventative from AIDS. However such a distinction is not in accordance with the teaching of the Church.
In fact this aspect of the problem of “Conscience” has been considered by John Paul II in his encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” (No. 54-64). In that chapter the Holy Father is well aware of such a distinction and separation between ethics and morals, made by some theologians. He gives an authoritative answer to such a theological position. He says : “For them (certain authors) the Church’s interventions are the cause of unnecessary conflicts of conscience. (57) In order to justify these positions, some authors have proposed a kind of double status of moral truth. Beyond the doctrinal and abstract level, one would have to acknowledge the priority of a certain more concrete existential consideration. The latter, by taking account of circumstances and the situation, could legitimately be the basis of certain exceptions to the general rule and thus permit one to do in practice what is qualified as intrinsically evil by the moral law. A separation, or even an opposition, is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid in general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision about what is good and what is evil. On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called “pastoral” solutions contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a “creative” hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept. No one can fail to realize that these approaches pose a challenge to the very identity of the moral conscience in relation to human freedom and God’s Law. Only the clarification made earlier with regard to the relationship, based on truth, between freedom and Law makes possible a discernment concerning this “creative understanding of conscience.” 43
D. CONTRACEPTION IS OBJECTIVELY A GRAVE MATTER.
It is necessary to make it clear that contraception is to be considered grave matter of sin. Therefore if somebody uses contraception with free will and full knowledge, he/she commits mortal sin. Peschke writes that in the aftermath of Humanae Vitae some bishops stressed the fact that contraception has not been condemned by Paul VI as gravely sinful, and therefore he never spoke of mortal sin for those using contraception. From there they arrived at the conclusion that those using contraception, they need not consider
43 John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, no. 56. 26 themselves separated from the Church, therefore they are allowed to receive Holy Communion without previous confession. 44
Actually this is quite a weak theological consideration. The answer is not difficult. In Humanae Vitae Paul VI never addressed the problem of human act, consequently he does not want to pass judgement on anybody. In order to commit mortal sin it is necessary to have full knowledge and free will. This is not the object of HV. This encyclical only wants to enlighten us about what contraception objectively is, and since the plan of God is to keep inseparably the two aspects of conjugal act: union and procreation, it “totally rejects’ all the means of opposing such a divine plan, in other words it totally rejects contraception. Coleman says: “Humanae Vitae should be read in such a way as to recall clearly that it is primarily concerned with objective morality: i.e., it is not directly concerned with formal sin, as it is with God’s mercy and forgiveness. It is of a great importance pastorally to recall that one does not find in Humanae Vitae the kind of language one sees in Casti Cannubii: that “those who indulge in such (acts) are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” 45
To think that the matter considered by Paul VI is a slight one because the words “mortal sin” are never used, not only ignores the purpose of Humanae Vitae, but also denies the gravity of the words of Paul VI in Humanae Vitae N. 13, when he says: “Anyone, who uses God’s gift (of conjugal love) and cancels, if only in part, the significance and the purpose of this gift is rebelling against either the male or female nature and against the most intimate relationship; for this reason, then, he is defying the plan of God and holy will of God”.
Certainly it is very difficult to conclude that Humanae Vitae is considering contraception as just matter for a venial sin if we consider what Paul VI said a few days after issuing Humanae Vitae: “The first feeling was that of a very grave responsibility. It led Us into and sustained Us in the very heart of the problem during the four years devoted to the study of preparation of this Encyclical. We confide to you that this feeling caused Us much spiritual suffering. Never before have We felt so heavily, as in this situation, the burden of our Office. We studied, read and discussed as much as We could; and We also prayed very much about it.” 46
We also know that according to the tradition of the Church there is no parvity of matter in sins against sixth Commandment. According to the traditional moral theology, the manualists classified sin according to the seriousness of the matter. Mortal sins ex toto genere suo are sins whose matter is so evil that there is no possible situation in which the gravity of evil can be lessened: i.e. the matter is intrinsically evil. Mortal sins ex genere suo are sins whose matter can be either serious or light depending upon the circumstances which specify the act…. It is the long established teaching in classical moral theology that the matter in every sexual sin falls into the ex toto genere suo category. For centuries moral theologians and the papal Magisterium have taught that there can be no parvity of
44 Cf. Peschke Karl, Christian Ethics II, p. 476, Manila, 1987. 45 Cf. Coleman Gerald D., Human Sexuality, p. 113, S. Francisco USA, 1992. 46 Cf. “L’Osservatore Romano”, ed. English, 8 August 1968, p. 5. 27 matter in sins against the sixth and ninth commandments. In 1975, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published Persona Humana, the “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics”. This documents states that according to the Christian Tradition, right reason, and the Church’s teaching, every direct violation of the moral order of sexuality is objectively serious because in the moral order of sexuality such high values of human life are involved.” 47
Moreover the moral tradition in the Church up until Pius XII and the declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1975, retains that masturbation is a objectively a grave sin. The reason is that: “According to Pope Pius XII, masturbation is gravely wrong because the full exercise of man’s generative faculty outside of the conjugal act involves a direct and undue usurpation of this faculty.” 48 Everybody understands that if masturbation is “gravely wrong” because it is an usurpation of man’s generative faculty, at least one can say that contraception too is “gravely wrong” because an undue usurpation of the generative faculty inside the conjugal act.
CHAPTER 4
ARE CONDOMS ALLOWED IN PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES?
Even though there is no doubt that the teaching of the Church considers contraception intrinsically illicit, with no exception, some would like to resort to condoms in cases as follows:
A. As a protection for the uninfected spouse. B. As protection for those having intercourse outside the marriage life. C. As a concession to those not upholding our Christian principles.
We consider those cases one by one.
A. CONDOMS AS A PROTECTION FOR THE UNINFECTED SPOUSE
In order to allow condoms in this case, some moral theologians consider condoms as “a therapeutic means”. They say that Paul VI allows the use of the principle of the double effect in curing some diseases, for the fact that in Humanae Vitae he says: “But the Church in no way regards as unlawful therapeutic means considered necessary to cure organic diseases, even though they also have a contraceptive effect, and this is foreseen –
47 Cf. Coleman Gerard D., Human sexuality, pp. 33-34, St. Francisco USA, 1992. 48 Cf. Pazhayampallil Thomas, Pastoral Guide, Vol. II, p. 1318, Bangalore, 1997. 28 provided that this contraceptive effect is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.” (HV 15) For instance, relying on this statement of Paul VI, Michael McCabe says: “If a particular means is necessary to cure a bodily disease, and that means also has a contraceptive effect, then it is licit, because the primary intention is to cure the disease…This principle provides another way of viewing the situation in which one partner in a marriage is HIV positive. Preventing the transmission of the virus during marriage act could be viewed as ‘a therapeutic means” of containing disease, as there is no cure for HIV infection. Interpreting this paragraph in this light would seem to allow for the use of condom to prevent the transmission of HIV within marriage. In such circumstances the direct intention of using condoms is to prevent the transmission of the virus, contained in the semen, from one partner to the other.
An unintended or indirect consequence of the action is the prevention of the transmission of the sperm.” 49 Such a theological position has obtain good support from Bishop P.J. Cullinane, who in his pastoral letter of Pentecost 1993, p. 18 wrote: “Even within the marriage when one partner already has the infection, the use of condoms as a means of preventing infection to the other partner is allowable by reason of the ‘principle of double effect”. In other words, the “effect” or result that is directly intended is preventing the spread of infection. The contraceptive effect is a side-effect of the same action. (Because the good end, viz. Avoiding infection, is not achieved through contraceptive effect, it is not a case of the end being used to justify the means.)”
From a theological point of view such a position appears immediately quite weak, for the following reasons:
1 - One cannot apply to condoms the characteristic of ‘therapeutic means’ because from a medical point of view the preventative is not a therapy. 50
2 - From an ethical point of view the therapeutic principle demands that the therapeutic means must be applied when there is no alternative; in this case an alternative exists and it is really safe, it is abstinence.51 In this case abstinence is a sacrifice which life
49 Cf. Michael McCabe, A theological and pastoral response to HIV/AIDS in Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands, session 6, pp. 4-5, Goroka, 2001. 50 Cf. Sgreccia Elio, Manuale di Bioetica, p. 265, Milano, 1991.
51 Ibidem. 29 sometimes requires in order to be sure to obtain a superior good, as it happens in other professions and solutions.
3 - The principle of double effect is not applicable in this case. According to this principle, one is allowed to carry out an action not evil in itself and having two effects (one good, and one bad), if the act is not evil in itself, if the good effect is the first or at least equally directly proceeding from the action, if the bad one is not intended, and if a proportionately grave reason justifies the admission of the indirect, evil effect. 52 Now it is clear that the first and direct effect (intrinsic and immediate) is the separation of the unitive aspect from the procreative aspect of the marital act, which is contraception, while the protection from HIV virus is only a second and possible effect. It is not sufficient to say that protection is the first intended effect, while contraception is the second unintended effect. The Church has always upheld two principles which explain the nature of principle of the double effect: “the end cannot justify the means” and “ we cannot do evil, in order to obtain something good” (in latin: non sunt facienda mala ut eveniant bona). The case of direct abortion in order to save the life of the mother is of a great help in order to understand the meaning of the principle of the double effect. In fact, even though saving the life of the mother is the first effect in the intention, abortion it is not permitted because it is the first effect: this is why it is called ‘direct abortion’. Our case is very similar to the ‘direct abortion’, this is why it is equally not acceptable. 53 In Gaudium et Spes Vat. II states: “When it is a question of harmonizing married love with responsible transmission of life, it is not enough to take only the good intention and the evaluation of motives into account; the objective criteria must be used, criteria drawn from the nature of the human person and human action, criteria which respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; all this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is seriously practiced. In the question of birth regulation the sons of the Church, faithful to these principles, are forbidden to use methods disapproved of by the teaching authority of the Church in its interpretation of the divine law.” 54
The words of Paul VI can help us once again: “It is never permissible to do evil so that good might result, not even for the most serious reasons. That is, one should never willingly choose to do an act that by its very nature violates the moral order, for such acts are unworthy of Man for this very reason. This is so even if one acted with the intent to defend and advance some good either for individuals or for families or for society” (HV 14).
Besides that, we cannot forget the reality. In his book “Medical Ethics”, Haring says: “In families where one of the spouses knows he or she is infected by HIV virus, everything must be done to avoid infection of the spouse. We can fully understand that doctors and political leaders, out of responsibility for the common good, are urging infected husbands to use condoms to prevent infection of the spouse. But it should also be stressed that even this may not be fully safe. However there is a great difference between husbands who in
52 Cf. Peschke Karl, Christian Ethics I, pp. 273-274, Manila 1987. 53 Cf. Sgreccia Elio, Manuale di Bioetica, Vita e pensiero, p. 265, Milano, 1991. 54 Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, no. 51. 30 marital intercourse are fully non-violent and careful and men who indulge in prostitution or promiscuity without restraint. In such situations and especially in homosexual cases intercourse, being frequently very violent, brings a heightened risk of condoms being ineffective.” 55
These remarks of Fr. Haring will be confirmed by what we will say in Chapter 6.
For the time being we can say that, used as contraceptives, condoms often fail because they tear, leak, or slip off entirely. Because women are fertile for only a small part of the month, they are only susceptible to pregnancy from a condom’s for part of the month; but because diseases such as HIV are contagious at all times, the HIV- partner is susceptible at every sexual contact. Furthermore, the HIV virus is much smaller than a sperm and thus more likely to escape through any imperfection in the condom; and anal intercourse is more likely to tear condoms than is vaginal intercourse. 56
Taking into account the aggravating factors listed here above (higher infectiousness, smaller size, greater risk of breakage) the risk of contact with HIV despite practice of so- called ‘safe sex’ is thus very considerable. 57
Therefore, if the uninfected spouse wants to remain so in the future, he/she has only one choice: abstinence.
B. CONDOMS AS A PROTECTION FOR THOSE HAVING INTERCOURSE OUTSIDE THE MARRIAGE.
For some theologians the use of condoms can be considered an option for these persons, by the fact that Humanae Vitae does not say anything about intercourse outside the marriage; according to them Humanae Vitae is concerned only with marital intercourse. For instance McCabe says: “ ‘Humanae Vitae’ was not written in a time of AIDS and also it was not written about sexual acts outside the marriage. Intercourse outside the marriage is not viewed by the Church as having the characteristics of married love which is unitive and procreative by its very nature. Theologians point out that it is questionable whether there is unitive characteristic to a sexual act by which one partner in marriage is unfaithful, or in which sex is bought or sold, or in which a person has intercourse with
55 Cf. Haring Bernard, Medical Ethics, p. 211-212, Middlegreen, United Kingdom, 1991 56 Susan Harlap, Kathryn Kost, and Jacqueline Darroch Forrest, Preventing Pregnancy, Protecting Health: A New Look at Birth Control Choices in the United States (New York: The Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1991), 120, estimate that with average use of condoms, sixteen women per hundred will experience an unintended pregnancy during the first year of use; even used perfectly, that is, precisely according to directions and without any exceptions whatsoever, about two women per hundred will experience an unintended pregnancy during the first year of use. Even were the partners of HIV carriers no more likely to be infected by condom failure than are women likely to be impregnated following condom failure, 2-16% of partners of those carrying HIV can expect to be infected with HIV within a year of regular intercourse, even if they use condoms. 57 Cf. p. 30. 31 multiple partners.” 58 Consequently, even though one does not condone intercourse outside the marriage, one can admit the use of condoms in such cases, relying on the principles of ‘first do no harm’ and ‘the lesser of two evils”.
I think that such a position is objectionable.
To say that “ ‘Humanae Vitae’ was not written in a time of AIDS and that it was not written about sexual acts outside of marriage” does not mean that Humanae Vitae is condoning or indirectly allowing the use of condoms in the case of sexual acts outside of marriage. The reason why Humanae Vitae is not focusing on sexual acts outside the marriage is because those acts are already sinful in themselves, and the only attention they can draw from the Church is for her to remind everybody that they must be avoided. Historically speaking much of Christian Tradition condemned contraception as a contralife act without distinguishing between its use by married couples and by others. To say that condoms can be used, because they are already wrong, means to ignore that the malice of the sin can be aggravated by the circumstances. Morally speaking the gravity of the sin is different if a man beats a friend or his mother. In our case to commit a sexual act outside the marriage is evil, but to misuse the marital act it is objectively an addition of malice, because the marital act is performed in an inhuman way. The fact that by using condoms one might avoid the HIV virus infections, cannot be considered a good action of those performing sexual acts outside the marriage, following the principle of “first do no harm”. The real good action, and the best way to follow the principle of “first do no harm” is not to have sexual intercourse outside the marriage. And this is what the Church reminds everybody of. If the person is convinced he/she is doing something good, even though having intercourse outside the marriage is gravely sinful, he/she will continue to cause harm to oneself and to society.
One cannot even rely on the principle of the lesser evil in order to justify the use of condoms in sexual acts outside marriage. The principle of the lesser evil can be applied only when somebody is obliged to choose between two evils, which are independent of one’s will, and there is no chance of avoiding both of them at the same time; consequently when he/she chooses the lesser evil he/she does not commit any sin: it is the case of a driver, whose car is going down the hill with no brake: when he realizes that the brakes do not work, it is too late: he only has the choice to go off the road and to drive into one of the two groups of people standing at the side of the road. One group is made up of three people, the other one is made up of twenty. He chooses the group of three. Following the principle of the lesser evil: he acted wisely, and he is not morally responsible for what happened, unless he was negligent beforehand in not checking his/her car. Here instead we have two partners who together decide not to respect the sixth commandment; nothing and nobody is obliging them to do that, except their own weakness. In this case one of the two evils (the intercourse outside the marriage) is caused by the free will of the two partners, and the other (the possibility of the HIV virus infection), if it happens, is only the consequence of their free will. It is obvious that this case is outside the basic conditions of the principle of the lesser evil, this is why it is
58 Cf. Michael McCabe, A theological an pastoral response to HIV/AIDS in Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands, Session 6, p.5, Goroka, 2001. 32 impossible to appeal to it. In order to avoid the second one, the best way is not to put into action the first one, meaning the intercourse outside the marriage .– In addition to that, the justification of the use of condoms in those cases in order to avoid the HIV virus infection would be an encouragement to maintain such a practice (=heterosexual and homosexual intercourse), under the cover of almost an act of charity or of mercy. The consequence of all that is that the eternal salvation of the people acting in this way is in danger, and the risk of catching and spreading the HIV virus is very high, since condoms are not as effective as people are used to think.
However, what about those cases, where it is evident that contraception is excluded: e.g. sodomy? Can we advise those practicing sodomy to use condoms? To explain such a position we can quote Bishop P. J. Cullinane: “However, what about those who do not accept our moral principles? They, too, have a moral obligation not to put themselves or others at risk. If they are not prepared to accept chastity, they should at least choose behavior which does not put lives at risk. Because condoms are not always safe, sodomy is that kind of risk. And if they are determined to commit sodomy, it is better to wear a condom than not to wear one. (The condom does not make their action wrong; it is already wrong.)….. The Church does not teach that the use of condoms is always wrong. It teaches that contraception is always wrong. The use of condoms becomes wrong if they are used for their contraceptive effect, within the marriage.” 59
Here we can perceive a great worry for the diffusion of the HIV virus, and the desire to spare from it as many people as possible. However we have to do that in the proper way. We can make some objection to this way of preventing the diffusion of the HIV virus.
We can put the problem this way: when a homosexual goes to the confessor and he says that he is committing sodomy, is the confessor allowed to advise him to use condoms in order not to infect others? In my opinion no:
• First of all because that advice might be misunderstood, seeming to lessen the intrinsic evil of the act of sodomy under the coverage of an act of charity, indirectly depriving the penitent of the strength to abandon such a bad habit. • Secondly because the teaching of the Church about the gravity of that sin against nature will not be received in all its clarity. • Thirdly because the use of condoms gives a false sense of safety, which convinces the condom users to continue in that direction, rather than abandoning it.
Instead the confessor is to insist on the gravity of homosexuality, as a sin against nature, trying to eradicate it as a habit; by doing that he will also ensure that no infection will be caused. In order not to weaken the teaching of the Church, the possibility of the use of condoms cannot even be touched on by the confessor in such a case.
59 Cf. Cullimane P.J., Life-giving Love, Pastoral letter, Palmerston North, Pentecost 1993.
33
C. CONDOMS AND THOSE NOT UPHOLDING OUR MORAL PRINCIPLES.
It is quite common to meet Christian people, or non Christian people, or openly atheistic people, who have different moral principles and consequently they do not accept the teaching of the Church on contraception. What about them? Should we let them follow their lifestyles unchallenged, or should we proclaim to them also the teaching of the Church on contraception? Some people are keen to follow the first option. However if it is true that the Church cannot impose her teaching on others, it is also true that the Church is bound to “preach to all the nations’ the Good News according to Mt. 28,18-20. Now as she proclaims to all the peoples that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, our Savior and our Redeemer because she knows this message is addressed to everybody on earth, she is also bound to reveal to everybody the truth about family morals, as a universal and immutable law given by God himself. It is the missionary nature of the Church that pushes us to do so. If we do not do so, it means that we have doubts about the universal message of the Church. Now if the Church knows that contraception is evil, because it is against the law given by God, she is to proclaim that to everybody on earth with the same courage that she has when she proclaims the divinity of Jesus Christ. On the other hand she already does that when she is dealing with abortion, euthanasia, ethnic cleansing, extermination camp. She proclaims to everybody the evil of those realities for the good of humankind. And we approve of that because we reckon that evil is evil for everybody, and as such it must be rejected universally. Why then should we accept the judgement of the Church in these matters and refuse it on contraception? On the other hand, those supporting human rights teach us that when we are convinced that something is good for humankind, it is our duty to spread it all over in the world. Why not do it then with the Good News, and with all the moral truths attached to it?
CHAPTER 5
THE LOVING COMPASSION OF THE CHURCH: TRUTH AND MERCY
So far we have seen one side of the compassionate attitude of the Church towards all those using or tempted to use contraception in their fight against the HIV virus, her teaching about the objective nature of contraception: contraception is evil, and it will remain evil in any case, even in trying to avoid AIDS. The Church is like a mother whose children are crying because they are hungry, and some of them would like to eat some food that she knows is poisoned: if they eat it, they will die. And she keeps telling them: do not eat such a food because it is deadly. A mother will never change such an attitude, because she is concerned for the life of her children. No one can ask her to be 34 reasonable, and to give in. No one will say that this mother is uncompassionate: she says no, just because she is compassionate. The Church is in the same situation.
However after spelling out the truth, the Church wants to show the other side of her loving compassion: the mercy of the Lord. Therefore she reaches out to each one who is affected by these problems, helping him/her to understand what he/she has done, and in the case of full knowledge and free will, she will help them to ask the Lord for forgiveness, and to have a new relationship with him.
The Church does not condemn anybody. Her great concern is the salvation of souls: she is ready to give the forgiveness of the Lord to anybody who is really repentant.
Here we have all the elements of the care of a real mother: truth and mercy. No one can say that the Church is harsh towards her children, or that she does not understand their situation. On the contrary she has received from the Lord the commitment to teach us what is written in the natural Law, which has been given to us in an universal and immutable way by God, and to forgive us and to heal us in case we have committed sin.
If the first aspect of her care for us (the Authoritative Teaching about Natural Law) is carried out by the Magisterium, the second (forgiving, healing, instructing and renewing our relationship with God), is entrusted to us priests.
We must be fully aware of the great dignity and responsibility the Lord Jesus has entrusted to us, Priests. The Sacrament of penance is one of the most delicate ministries, through which souls come in touch with the Lord Jesus himself, with his word, his love, his forgiveness, his encouragement and strength, his blood and his sanctifying grace. It is there that most often souls become aware of their mistakes, confess their sins, are totally renewed and are determined to change their behavior. And if by chance because of their weakness they still commit sins, they acquire the grace to be humble and to come back again to ask the Lord for forgiveness, starting a spiritual journey, which will lead them to salvation, even though it will require an immense spiritual effort.
Everybody can see how delicate such a ministry is. In order to fulfill it properly we have to remember that at the moment of absolution we are acting “in persona Christi”, and when we give any advice during confession, we teach on behalf of the Church. It means that we cannot betray Christ and the Church when we are in the confessional box. No priest can go to the confessional to express personal opinions, much less if they are in opposition to the official teaching of the Church. The Church gives us the jurisdiction to hear confession, in order to teach the real mind of the Church. It is useful to remember what St. Faustina Kowalska wrote so many times in her diary about the presence of Jesus in the Confessor; how many times Jesus told her to obey to the Confessor rather than to what he was telling her by vision. It means that in confessional, Jesus is totally entrusting himself to us, and we are truly his representative, his loudspeaker, in a word we are Himself.
35
Therefore the priest must be compassionate to the point of acknowledging no sin in the penitent, if he/she acted without full knowledge or free will. Keep always in mind the distinction between the moral act and human act. Not necessarily an evil act is also a sin: if it is deprived of free will and full knowledge the act is not human, consequently there is no sin. 60 The priest must be compassionate also to the point of encouraging and not denying the absolution even to the penitent who repeatedly goes back to his/her sins, because of his/her weakness. If somebody is really sorry for one’s sins, the Grace of the Lord can perform incredible miracles, and can obtain what seems impossible to us. 61
However the priest must be truthful in reminding the penitent of God’s law and also of the teaching of the Church on God’s Law. This is the true way to help the penitent to obtain everlasting life. Jesus enjoined his forgiveness each time with the invitation to abandon sin.
The priest must be faithful to Jesus and the Church. So we have to know his mind and the mind of the Church, in order to be faithful to them. In other words, we cannot enter the confessional without the necessary knowledge in moral theology. If a good knowledge of moral theology was necessary in the past, now it is much more so, because of the incredible challenges raised in bioethics. To ignore the mind of Jesus and the mind of the Church on this matters is unacceptable, and we know that if a priest is ignorant because of “ignorantia crassa” (it means lack of knowledge that he is supposed to have in force of his office) he is committing a grave sin, because he is putting the souls at risk of loosing eternal life.
This is why I exhort you to improve your knowledge of moral theology, and especially of moral sexuality and bioethics, which are so important at the moment, and so debated. And to make good use of any Vatican document in this respect. One of the most useful is certainly the “Vademecum for Confessors concerning some aspects of the morality of conjugal life”, published by the Pontifical Council for the Family, in 1997. It is a document that helps us understand the real teaching of the Church on contraception and gives clear guidelines for confessors in dealing with penitents affected by such a problem: we are invited to enlighten those who are still in the dark in this matter by being true witnesses of the teaching of the Church on moral human sexuality, to be merciful to anybody who by the grace of the Lord is sorry of his/her sins, and to instill confidence in them that by the grace of the Lord, obtained through the frequent reception of the sacraments, they will be able to start a new relationship with God and to overcome all their difficulties.
I invite you to read this document carefully, and to follow it thoroughly. It is absolutely important that in our Diocese there be the same teaching. It would be destructive for souls, if our people got the impression that in such a delicate matter there is no unanimity among the clergy, or between the teaching of the Bishop and the teaching of certain
60 Cf. Jone Heribert, Moral Theology, pp. 2-16, Westminster, USA, 1956. Cf. Bonivento Cesare, Contraception and therapeutic sterilization, pp. 11-12, Vanimo 1998 61 Cf. The Pontifical Council for the Family, Vademecum for Confessors concerning some aspects of the morality of conjugal life, p. 22,1997. Citta’ del Vaticano. 36 confessors. In this regard I have to remind you of the law of gradualness, which is sometimes misunderstood and is one of the reasons why sometimes there is a discrepancy among confessors. The “Vademecum for Confessors is very clear on that. It reads as follows: “The pastoral ‘law of gradualness’, not to be confused with the “gradualness of the law” which would tend to diminish the demands it places on us, consists of requiring a decisive break with sin together with a progressive path towards total union with the will of God and with his loving demands” 62
At this stage it is good to remember the address to the Priests by Paul VI in the Humanae Vitae” “With complete confidence We call upon you priests, Our beloved sons, to you who are the advisers and spiritual guides of individuals and families…In performing your ministry you must be an example of the sincere obedience that must be given both inwardly and outwardly to the Magisterium of the Church…Nor let it escape you that is of the utmost importance for safeguarding the peace of souls and unity of the Christian people, that in moral as in dogmatic matters all should obey the Magisterium of the Church and should speak with one voice…. Refusal to compromise anything concerning the saving doctrine of Christ is an outstanding act of charity to souls; yet at the same time it is necessary to always combine this with tolerance and charity. When He spoke and associated with men, the Redeemer Himself exemplified the truth. Coming not to judge the world but to save it, He was severe against sin but patient and merciful to sinners” (HV 28) 63
If there is any query in this matter, do not hesitate to contact me: I will always be available to you. I am also very happy to inform you that during our third clergy meeting (July 2001) there will be a seminar of a few days, totally dedicated to this topic.
62 Ibidem, p. 21.
63 This appeal of Paul VI to the priest is echoing Pio XI’s appeal in Casti Connubii (no. 56-57) which reads: “We admonish, therefore, priests who hear confessions and others who have the care of souls, in virtue of our supreme authority and in our solicitude for the salvation of souls, not to allow the faithful entrusted to them to err regarding this most grave law of God; much more, that they keep themselves immune from such false opinions, in no way conniving in them. If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, lead the faithful entrusted to him into these errors or should at least confirm them by approval or by guilty silence, let him be mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his sacred trust, and let him take to himself the words of Christ: ‘They are blind and leaders of the blind and if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit.”
37
CHAPTER 6
CONDOMS CANNOT PROTECT THOSE AT RISK
The present debate about the use of contraceptives, and especially of condoms, as a protection from the HIV virus is fuelled by the deep conviction of many people that condoms are effective or at least partly effective. This is why in the face of the negative attitude of the Church towards condoms, some people accuse the Church of not being compassionate, and still more they accuse her of being responsible for the death of countless numbers of people.
However the truth is that condoms are not so protective as the world propaganda claims, with the consequence that it is not the Church who is uncompassionate, but the world propaganda which pushes people to use these deadly means and eventually to be infected because of them.
Recently “Vanimo Family Life Apostolate” published a very interesting booklet with the title “Do condoms stop or spread AIDS?” 64 The striking thing about this booklet is that all the information collected for it comes from agencies promoting condoms as a protective from AIDS. The authors went through the internet and they were able to collect information released by those agencies. It was very hard to collect it, because it is not in the front page of their advertisements, and most of the time they are released in order to protect themselves from various accusation about the ineffectiveness of contraceptives, especially of condoms. In any case it is extremely interesting to have such an information coming from those supporting the use of condoms.
According to that booklet, it is very hard to use condoms consistently (=always) and correctly, and it is so improbable to avoid any kind of failure from condoms, that the actual effectiveness of condoms as prevention from AIDS is reduced almost to nil. 65 It means that, statistically speaking, those using condoms because of risky sex behavior or because they want to protect themselves from their infected spouse or partner, have a very slim chance of avoiding the HIV virus in the first year of using condoms, and certainly they will get it in the next four years. According to that booklet:
• all those indulging in risky sex behavior (= those having more than one sexual partner or having homosexual relationships) and using condoms are exposing themselves to the HIV virus and have a very high chance of getting infected within the first year. If somebody is not infected within the first year, it is because he/she has been very lucky: it means that his or her partners were not yet infected. If instead the partner(s) was (were) infected, it is sufficient to experience even only one of the above mentioned failures to get infected.
64 Cf. Vanimo Family Life Apostolate, Do condoms stop or spread AIDS?, pp. 40, Vanimo, 2000. 65 Ibidem, p. 11-14 , p 22-24. 38
• all those indulging in risky sex behavior and using condoms for more than four or more years can be expected to get AIDS: in fact the risk of having sex with an infected partner is so high and the failures of condoms are so numerous in four years time that one can reasonably exclude the possibility of not being infected. “Different studies show different failure rates, but we must consider the result of an individual relying on condoms over several years of their sexual activity. Whatever the failure rate for one sexual act with a condom, it is unacceptable when compounded over 5 to 10 years using condoms.”
• It is a joke to say that condoms are safe or safer. They are not safe because the statistics deny it. They are not safer, because it is just ‘good luck’ not to be infected. It is only a big risk, without mercy if the game is too long. Because of the high failure rate of condoms, Dr. Susan Weller says: “it is a disservice to encourage the belief that condoms will prevent sexual transmission of HIV.” 66 The booklet concludes: “Some people may have been appalled at the rate of possible infections. If we made any mistakes, we would be very grateful if somebody could show them to us.” 67
On the other hand the conclusions of Vanimo Family Life Apostolate are confirmed by Gerard G. Coleman who writes: “The term “safe sex” or “safer sex” gives the public the illusion that good use of condoms will protect them from HIV infection much of the time. However, the risk of HIV infection even with ‘good’ condoms use increases, proportionately with each sexual act. Failure rates range from 17% to 65% per year (50- 140 condoms/year). For an individual, one-time exposure to HIV through condom failure and bodily fluid contact is all that is needed to bring the virus into a person’s system….. These types of serious considerations have critical ramifications when condoms are assigned effectiveness rates to prevent pregnancy. The HIV virus in an infected individual is present 100% of the time, and the risk for contracting HIV is many times greater than the possibility for pregnancy. The effectiveness of condoms to reduce the risk of HIV transmission and infection is not, then as good as the public has been led to believe” 68In the same page the Author writes: Condom manufactures allow for the distribution of defective condoms. After distribution, if a batch is decidedly more defective than the allowable 4% they are recalled. This may be too late for many. In November of 1990, 750,000 latex condoms were distributed to New York city residents. Weeks following distribution, they were recalled. Sottile-Malona cites sources at the Centers for Disease Control as indicating in this regard, “There are no wins for the players; only the owners (condom manufacturers) and promoters of sex anytime, any way, stand to gain economically and philosophically. When the condom is assigned an effectiveness rate in pregnancy prevention, that rate is based on couples randomly having intercourse throughout the menstrual cycle. Figures for effectiveness range from 95-80%. But through current Natural Family Planning research, we know that at least 70% of the cycle is infertile and that conception is not possible during this time. Therefore, any
66 Ibidem, p. 25-26, Vanimo 2000. 67 Ibidem, p. 26, Vanimo 2000. 68 Cf. Coleman gerard D., Human Sexuality, p. 389, St. Francisco, USA, 1992; cf. Suaudeau Jacques, Le “sexe sur” et le preservatif face au defi du Sida, Medicina e Morale, p. 689-726, 1997/4. 39 measurement of a condom’s effectiveness is only valid during the fertile time and pregnancies occur when condoms fail during this ‘fertile window”. 69
Focusing on the uninfected partner, “Webside pregnancy Resource Center” maintains that: “Among married couples where one partner was HIV-positive, 17 percent of the uninfected spouses contracted the disease, despite the use of condoms. (Contraceptive technology, Hatcher et al, 1990, p. 1730.) That is a rate greater than one in six. Statistically speaking, the uninfected partners would have been better off playing Russian Roulette.” 70
The longer the time for using condoms the higher the failure rate of condoms. This means that if in one years time the failure rate is 15%, at the end of four years of condom use the failure rate will be not less than 48%. These are the probabilities in perspective for a method with a 15% annual failure rate, given by “Webside pregnancy ResourceCenter”:
Failure rate after 1 year’s time: 15% - one in 7 became pregnant Failure rate after 2 year’s time: 28% - one in 4 became pregnant Failure rate after 3 year’s time: 39% - one in 3 became pregnant Failure rate after 4 year’s time: 48% - half became pregnant.” 71
It is worth noting that, that 17% among married couples mentioned by Webside pregnancy Resource Center” refers to the first year, and among people being helped to use condoms consistently and correctly. If we add to that all the possibilities of using condoms inconsistently and incorrectly for four years for the common people, we easily reach the conclusions of “Vanimo Family Center Apostolate”. 72
To rely then on condoms in order to be protected from the infected spouse, is the same as sentencing him/her to death. It is very hard to accept that, however this is the language of the statistics. This is particularly true in the case of a woman forced to have sex with her infected and possibly drunk husband. A woman who relies on a condom in order to protect herself, will be in a situation where the most essential conditions for the correct use of condoms will never be met, making the use of condoms totally useless in a short while. Vanimo Family Life Apostolate helps us to have a knowledge of all the instructions given by SIECUS in order to use condoms ‘Correctly’. 73
69 Ibidem. 70 Cf. http://www.w-cpc.org/sexuality/teens.html. 71 Ibidem. 72 cf. Vanimo Family Life Apostolate, Do condoms stop or spread AIDS?, pp. 25-26, Vanimo, 2000. 73 They are as follows: 1) “A new condom is used every time a person has sexual intercourse. 2) The condom is put on after the penis is erect and before it touches any part of partner’s mouth, anus, or vagina. 3) If the condom breaks during sexual intercourse, the penis should be withdrawn immediately, and a new condom should be put on the penis. 4) Withdraw from the partner immediately after ejaculation, holding the condom firmly to the base of the penis to keep it from slipping off, so no semen is spilled. 40
Vanimo Family Life Apostolate comments: “One realizes straightaway the difficulty of following all these instructions. It is inconceivable that ordinary people (especially those in the third world countries) know all these things, and are careful enough to follow all these instructions. Of particular difficulty is point 4): in fact it requires a control that only a few people have; plus most of the condom users will never understand why they have to withdraw exactly at that moment. - Point 6) too is very difficult, with the result of frequent wrong handling of condoms: see the statistics at No. 11.” 74
It might be that in the future the medical scientific research will find a preventative that is very effective and not contraceptive. We hope and we pray for that is so. For the time being only condoms are available and the truth is that, besides being anti human, their effectiveness is very limited and for a limited period of time. 75
CONCLUSION
THE PROPHETIC ROLE OF THE CHURCH
At the end of this pastoral letter it seems to me that the obvious conclusion is as follows: the Church clearly teaches us that the use of contraceptives, and particularly of condoms, is strictly forbidden by Divine Law, because they badly damage the meaning of the marital act, and as such they degrade human dignity. According to the Church, contraception cannot be used as protection from the HIV virus under any circumstances.
On the other hand condoms prove to be not only ineffective in stopping the HIV virus, but they can also be a source of spreading such a disease, because of the subsequent
5) Water-based lubrication should be used to prevent condoms from breaking; oil-based lubricants such as cooking or vegetable oils, baby oil, hand lotion, or petroleum jelly should never be used with latex condoms. They can cause the condom to break. 6) Condoms should be stored in a drawer or closet, somewhere cool, dry, and out of direct sunlight. Changes in temperature, rough handling or age can make the latex brittle or gummy. Never use condoms that are damaged or discolored, brittle, or sticky. Do not store them in a wallet or car glove compartment for a long time.” Cf. Ibidem, p. 12-13. 74 Ibidem, p. 13. 75 It is compulsory to draw the attention of everybody to the fact that condoms not only is anti human, but it is especially anti woman. Everybody immediately understands how difficult is to follow the above fourth instruction given by SIECUS for condoms to be effective; and in case that this procedure is thoroughly followed, how it is depriving the woman of what is due to her in the sexual intercourse. Those who think they are justified in supporting the use of condoms outside the marriage in order to avoid AIDS, have to know that they do so at the expense of the women.
41 mentality that condoms create (= sex is a right for anybody, at any age, at any cost), which is the basis for actually spreading the infection everywhere.
While we hope and pray that science will be able to find proper medicines to stop such a plague, and to cure those already affected by it, we have to try to stop the HIV virus in a prophetic way, typical of the mission we have received from the Lord.
We have to proclaim to everybody that only the observance of God’s Law can effectively and perfectly protect us from the HIV virus. No one can doubt that chastity before marriage, and fidelity within marriage are the right way of avoiding the HIV virus. Even those who have the greatest interest in selling contraceptives have to admit that this is the only sure way to spare us from the HIV virus. Our most positive and most constructive contribution to defeat HIV virus is then to invite everybody to follow God’s law. We have to courageously proclaim that it is not because of the observance of God’s Law that the HIV virus spreads, but because of the non observance of it.
We have also to proclaim that this way is possible. The world propaganda about condoms wants to convince everybody that chastity and fidelity are too hard, if not utterly impossible. This message is so continuous and deafening that little by little it is convincing us too, to the point that we will find hard to talk and to preach about purity, chastity, virginity and fidelity. We have to acknowledge that in this moment we are facing attempts by international Agencies to teach our children in our catholic Schools ways of avoiding AIDS, which are unacceptable by the most basic morality 76; we are pressurized to adapt ourselves to the new views and sensitivities for the sake of public health, and we are labeled as lacking of common sense and being unrealistic when we
76 It is sufficient to quote one of the booklets that has recently been abusively introduced to our Catholic Schools in order to fight AIDS: Matjila John, The Macmillan AIDS awareness programme, Teacher’s Guide, Senior Primary Level, pp. 24, Swaziland, 1994. At pp. 21-22 it says: “Q. How can you avoid getting AIDS? A. The only way that you can avoid getting AIDS is by making sure that you don’t get infected with HIV. To avoid getting infected with HIV, you must avoid doing thing things that put you at risk. The best way of avoiding infection is by not having sex at all. But if you do have sex, you can protect yourself in the following ways: i You and your partner can give each other sexual pleasure just by touching each other’s sex parts. In this way, your sex parts don’t come into contact with your partner’s sex parts, so you don’t risk getting infected. We call thi non-penetrative sex, because the penis does not penetrate, or go into, the vagina. ii Use a condom properly each time you have sex. Carry a condom with you at all times in case you may need it. iii Don’t have casual sex. iv Don’t have sex with different partners. It is not safe to have one partner for a month or a week and then to move on to another partner. Sticking to one partner means having only that partner, permanently. v Don’t have sex with people who have many partners, such as prostitutes or ‘sugar-daddies’. vi Don’t have sex with someone who has a sexually transmitted disease. vii Don’t use injection needles, tattoo needles,shaving razors, tooth brushes or ear-piercing devices that someone else has used”.
If such a system is passively accepted, it will cause a fast spread of the HIV virus, and it will be very hard for the children in the schools to understand that purity and chastity before the marriage, and fidelity within the marriage are the true ways to avoid the HIV virus. 42 speak about living moral values as the best way to fight AIDS. 77 To proclaim the Good News in these new circumstances is very hard. But there are people doing that, and we have to support them and to follow them:78
I invite you all, dear Priests, to be good shepherds of your flock. Protect your people, and especially the children, from any bad advice given in hospitals, and from any false teaching given in the schools, especially the Catholic Schools.
Be courageous in speaking out against the immorality that causes the spread of the HIV virus infection: prostitution, promiscuity, six-to-six, adultery, pornography, bad example to the young, polygamy, lack of hygiene, poverty, abuse of the poor, pedophilia, lack of employment etc. All these social issues must be properly discussed and tackled, before denigrating the only constructing work of those defending the most traditional values in the country: chastity and fidelity.
Take all the necessary initiatives to stop the HIV virus. I mean: training for Christian formation, awareness programs, offering medical support if it is possible, and giving
77 In January 1998 I sent a letter to “The National”, complaining that some initiative taken by the local committee anti-AIDS would damage rather than help our school children. The Editor answered as follows: “The Bishop’s answer to these facts is straightforward. Educate people in spiritual and moral values and sex outside the marriage will be minimized, or ideally disappear. The National supports the ethical and moral concept of educating our children to respect the sanctity of marriage. But we also recognize the reality, which is that fighting against the use of condoms will condemn hundreds, even thousands of our people to an early and horrific death” (cf. “The National” (Papua new Guinea), 12 January 1998, p. 15, Editorial.); In July 2000 I sent another letter to “The National” complaining about the abusive introduction of booklets not suitable for schoolchildren by overseas Agencies, and again the Editorial of “The National” reprimanded me as follows: “Bishop Bonivento’s opposition to the use of condoms has been made clear for some years, years in which many Papua New Guineans have died as the result of engaging in unprotected sex…But this is the real world, the world in which people are now dying at an increasing rate from AIDS, the world where Tessie Soi and dozens of others spend their time conforting those who are doomed…It’s the world where beleaguered offcials are doing their damnest to teach people how they can minimize the risk of contracting AIDS by using condoms. And that’s the world in which a handful of hard workers is up against superstition, misinformation and intolerance on all fronts. Assuming Bishop Bonivento’s remarks represent the official views of the Catholic Church, one wonders how the Church can reconcile the real situation with its theological beliefs.” (cf: “The National, 17 July 2000, Editorial.) 78 On the 5th of January The ABC News of USA published an article with the following title: “Virginity pledges work: Pledging “I won’t” until swearing “I do” is helping teens say “I don’t.” One can read as follows: “Those teens who sign on the dotted line, vowing to abstain from sex until marriage, delayed having intercourse about 18 months longer than those who didn’t, a new study says. These abstinence pledges usually occur at a public event in a church or a school, where the teens make a commitment as a group. “Our findings surprised us because we didn’t expect to see any effect from these pledges,” says lead investigator Peter S. Bearman, a Columbia University sociologist whose work will be published in the January issue of the American Journal of Sociology. But the pledging apparently worked: Fifty percent of those who pledged stayed virgins until about age 20, while 50 percent of non-pledgers lost their virginity by age 17. “This analysis shows that virginity pledges can be an effective tool for delaying sexual intercourse in the teenage years,” says Duane Alexander, director of the national Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the national Inastitute of Health. Alexander says educators and others who work with young people now have sound data to back abstinence approaches when helping teens to avoid sex and its associated risks” (Cf.: abcnews.go.com.sections/living/DailyNews/virginity0101014.html - 05/Jan/2001.)
43 moral support to those already affected by AIDS, especially to the terminally ill. The Diocese will try to do its best in order to assist them, and also to teach the families to assist them with loving care within the family.
Finally I invite you to always trust in and be faithful to the Magisterium of the Church. It is easy to follow the Magisterium when the teaching of the Church is reasonable and supported by public opinion. Instead when the media and the public opinion are against it, we are tempted to conceal our opinion, to keep silence, and possibly to join the criticism of those who have no faith in the assistance of the Holy Spirit to the Magisterium of the Church.
We live in a time of great technological advances and great freedom. Everything is believed true if it is verifiable by our intelligence, perceived by our senses, and approved by our own conscience and will. To believe that the Pope and the College of the Bishops are telling us the truth, while what they say goes against our convictions or expectations or interests, is undoubtedly hard. But Jesus is still repeating to his Apostles: “ Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; and whoever rejects me, rejects the one who sent me’ (Lk 10, 16).
We priests must be on the right side; that means totally faithful to the Magisterium: because of our identity, of our commitment at the moment of our ordination, and of our responsibility for the souls entrusted to us. Our faith is to be proved especially when the things are not so clear to the human way of thinking, and the Magisterium feels responsible to lead us. We must not forget that the Holy Spirit will never abandon the Church, therefore he will never deny his assistance to the Magisterium, because he will never deny the words of Jesus “Go to all the peoples….and teach them to obey everything I have commanded you. And I will be with you always, to the end of the age” (Mt 28:19-20).
This is the road the Church has walked through all her historical difficulties. This is the road we still have to walk in these present days.
v Cesare Bonivento PIME Bishop of Vanimo 22 April 2001 Feast of the Divine Mercy