The condom debate

It is a teaching of the Catholic Church that the conjugal act must always leave open the possibility of conception. It is the purpose of devices such as condoms to rule out impregnation. Consequently, the Church holds that the use of contraceptives in order to prevent the origination of new life is iniquitous.

In the age of Aids, however, the Church grapples with new questions concerning the use of condoms specifically. If they can save lives, can their use be justified? Does a potential life take precedence over an existing one?

Bishop Kevin Dowling’s contribution to this debate–arguing in favour of the use of condoms in an effort to combat the spread of HIV/Aids–articulates what many Catholics, including moral theologians, have been reasoning for a long time.

It must be noted that Bishop Dowling is no renegade bent on provocation. Even beyond his diocese of Rustenburg, he is respected as an exceptional prelate, and internationally as an authority on the social effects of Aids in Southern Africa.

As a pastor, he has experienced the anguish of witnessing much Aids-related suffering. His experience in the field has prompted the proposal that the bishops permit the use of prophylactics as a drastic measure to fight the spread of the disease. At the same time, the bishop pointed out that the condom’s failure rate in protection against Aids is alarming (31%, according to the British Medical Journal). This, however, must not detract from the objective truth that condoms can save lives.

Yet, the argument that lifting the Church’s ban on condoms might encourage promiscuous behaviour must be considered, too. To that end, the bishops cannot consider the distribution of condoms.

Bishop Dowling has stressed that abstinence remains the safest method in Aids prevention, and as such is the preferred method of addressing the pandemic. Abstinence, however, is not always a matter of choice, inside or outside of marriage. Sexual relations are subject to all sorts of social dynamics and pressures, the Church’s doctrine on extra-marital sex notwithstanding.

The ethical conundrum is this: would the Church’s teaching on contraceptives be violated when a condom is used as a means to prevent death, not new life? In that respect one might reflect on the matter of prescribed medication to regulate a woman’s menstrual cycle, but which renders her temporarily infertile. Although such medication precludes the conception of new life, using it as part of medical treatment constitutes no offence to the magisterium.

When the bishops meet next week to discuss their vision on the Aids pandemic, they will be faced with the challenge of reconciling the Church’s doctrinal and compassionate dimensions.

Bishop Dowling argues in favour of the greater good, while retaining the primary focus on proclaiming a renewal of moral values to counteract the culture of promiscuity and coercive sex in our society. When the Church’s message on sexuality is not heard, alternative ways of protecting life must be considered.

Condoms, when used to save a life, provide one way, albeit an imperfect one, in stemming the Aids pandemic. In that light, the Church is called to reconcile its total ban on prophylactics with the philosophy of the sanctity of life.

No civil organ is doing more to fight Aids in Southern Africa than the Catholic Church. Bishop Dowling’s comments should be seen as an attempt to balance Catholic doctrine with the need of the Church to be compassionate to the most ostracised and vulnerable people in our society.