The Church's condom conundrum

The Pope still doesn’t want you to use condoms, but he just might excuse it — if you’re a male prostitute.

In a surprising reversal of Church teaching, Benedict XVI’s statements in a new book of interviews will reportedly declare condoms a little less taboo.

This semi-authorization leads to some sticky moral puzzles, but the announcement is most significant because it marks a new relationship between the Church and
scientific fact.

When the Pope traveled to Cameroon in March 2009, he raised international ire when he told an audience that condoms could not solve the HIV/AIDS epidemic and could “even increase the problem.”

As long as the Church had provided a more ambiguous justification for its basically unfounded opposition to condoms, people who don’t turn to the Church for ultimate moral guidance had merely considered it hypocritical that the Pope failed to leverage his influential voice and substantial wealth to do something for “the least of these.”
But the infamous Cameroon comments marked a turning point. Benedict, it seemed, was no longer content to justify his anti-condom policies on moral grounds.

On a continent ravished by HIV/AIDS, he found for himself the authority to rewrite scientific fact.

The Church has a long history of maintaining that its statements explain the world better than science. When Galileo contradicted the Church by supporting a heliocentric view of the universe, he was tried by the Holy Office, in what would become known as the Inquisition.

It took until 2000 and the papacy of John Paul II for the Church to muster a plea for forgiveness for Galileo’s persecution and a litany of other atrocities, including sins committed against Jews, heretics, women, Gypsies and native peoples.

As a part of his public apology, John Paul II promised “never again.”

Too bad his successor has been quick to rip a page from his book.

On a practical level, we can hope that Benedict’s newfound permissiveness may create an environment in which condom use is somewhat less taboo. But if he has really decided to commit himself to stopping the spread of HIV, Benedict still has some work to do.

It’s impossible to determine the number of people who would forego condom use because the Pope tells them it is morally wrong or practically ineffective.

But for anyone who does subscribe to the Pope’s worldview, it’s hard to imagine that this statement will do much to slow the spread of HIV.

By saying that condoms may be acceptable in extremely limited situations, such as for male prostitutes, the Pope is really only saying that condom use is acceptable for
‘unacceptable’ people.

If the Pope wants to have any real credibility as a humanitarian in the 21st century, he’ll have to explain why most people risk their souls to protect their and their partner’s bodies.

Tell us, why exactly is it impermissible for heterosexuals to protect themselves from contracting HIV by using something that also functions as a contraceptive?

The Pope might have taken a first step, but God knows it’s easy to make improvements when you have a lot to change.


E-mail: wallacen@indiana.edu