ROME, May 1 — Even at the Vatican,
not all sacred beliefs are absolute. Thou shalt not kill, but there is
still "just" war. Now, behind the quiet Vatican walls, a clash is
shaping up between two poles of near-certainty: the church's long-held
ban on condom use and its advocacy of human life.
The issue is AIDS. Church officials recently confirmed that Pope
Benedict XVI has requested a report on whether it might be acceptable
for Catholics to use condoms in one narrow circumstance: to protect
life inside a marriage when one partner is infected with the HIV virus
or is sick with AIDS.
Whatever the pope ultimately decides, church officials and other
experts broadly agree that it is remarkable that so sensitive an issue
is being taken up. But they agree that such an inquiry is logical, and
particularly significant from this pope, who as Cardinal Joseph
Ratzinger was Pope John Paul II's strict enforcer of church doctrine.
"In some ways, maybe he has got the greatest capacity to do it
because there is no doubt about his orthodoxy," said Jon Fuller, a
Jesuit priest and physician who runs an AIDS clinic at the Boston
Medical Center.
The issue has surfaced repeatedly in recent years as one of the most
complicated and delicate facing the church. For years, some influential
cardinals and theologians have argued for a change for couples affected
by AIDS in the name of protecting life, while others have fiercely
attacked the possibility as demoting the church's long advocacy of
abstinence and marital fidelity to fight the disease.
The news broke just after Benedict celebrated his first anniversary
as pope, a relatively quiet year with few concrete papal acts. But he
devoted his first encyclical to love, specifically between a man and a
woman inside marriage.
Indeed, with regard to condoms, the only change being considered,
according to reports, is in the specific case of a married couple. But
any change, however narrow, would be unpopular with conservative
Catholics, some of whom have already expressed disappointment that
Benedict has displayed a softer face than Cardinal Ratzinger did as
defender of the faith.
"It's just hard to imagine that any pope — and this pope — would
change the teaching," said Austin Ruse, president of the Culture of
Life Foundation, a Catholic-oriented advocacy group based in Washington
that opposes abortion and contraception.
It is too soon to know where the pope is heading. Far less
contentious issues can take years, to inch through the Vatican's nexus
of belief and bureaucracy, prayer and politics.
The office of Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragán, the pope's top aide
on health care issues, and other Vatican officials last week declined
requests for interviews about the subject, and the news reports have
been contradictory except to confirm that the pope has asked for such a
review.
Cardinal Lozano Barragán was quoted in the newspaper La Repubblica
as saying that Benedict made the request two months ago, as part of a
broader examination of bioethical issues. "My department is carefully
studying it, along with scientists and theologians entrusted with
drawing up a document about the subject, which will soon be made
known," he was quoted as saying.
He backtracked slightly a few days later: "We are in the first
stage," the cardinal told the Zenit news agency. Would there be a
document? "There might or might not be."
The debate has two levels: one on moral theology and church
doctrine, the other public relations and politics. Many factors are
driving the debate: The church is experiencing its greatest growth in
Africa, which has the most severe AIDS problem. Much health care in
Africa is provided by Catholic charities, whose workers, barred from
providing condoms, have often spoken of being torn between church
doctrine and the need to prevent disease.
More broadly, critics of the current Vatican policy say it is hard
for the church to remain consistent on "life" issues, like its
opposition to abortion and euthanasia and the death penalty, when
condom use can help prevent the spread of AIDS.
But there is a deep vein of feeling against any change. Some oppose
any perceived erosion of Humanae Vitae, the 1968 encyclical that banned
artificial contraception, while other opponents say approving condoms
for AIDS prevention might be interpreted as a wider acceptance of their
use.
"That will be picked up as 'Church O.K.'s condoms,' and that would
seem to undermine the whole church teaching on sexuality and marriage,"
said Brian Johnstone, a moral theologian at the Alphonsian Academy in
Rome.
The debate was reopened, in public at least, in a long exchange
between Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, the retired archbishop of Milan
and an influential thinker in the church, and the Italian bioethicist,
Ignazio Marino, in April in the newsweekly L'Espresso.
"Certainly the use of prophylactics can, in some situations,
constitute a lesser evil," Cardinal Martini said. "There is, then, the
particular situation of spouses, one of whom is affected by AIDS."
But he recognized arguments against the church making any such
official statement, saying, "The question is really if it is wise for
religious authorities to propagandize in favor of this method of
defense, almost implying that the other morally defensible means,
including abstinence, should be put on a secondary plane."
The moral arguments stretch back nearly two millennia, to the idea
that the church has a responsibility, in difficult moral cases, to
advocate the "lesser evil."
"It is not considering that using a condom is morally good or
right," Father Johnstone said. "You are simply trying to persuade that
person to do the lesser evil — but it is still considered evil."
There are other related arguments: One is of "self defense," in
which an uninfected partner could demand condom use to protect against
infection. Another is that using a condom against AIDS could be
considered medical intervention rather than contraception.
But the "lesser evil" argument is not universally accepted among
Catholic thinkers, and the theology is complicated. Among many other
issues, there is the user's intent: whether it is possible to use a
condom without the intention of contraception.
"Putting on a condom is clearly something someone chooses," the Rev.
Thomas Berg, an ethicist and director of the Westchester Institute, an
institute for Catholic studies in New York, said by e-mail.
"And to do so in sexual relations, even if one's purpose is not to
contracept, but merely to stop the spread of disease, one would still
be opting for something that drastically disorders those sexual
relations," he added. "And this, the church has taught to be immoral."
Echoing other conservative voices, Father Berg said he believes
that, in the end, Benedict will make no changes but use the debate to
"vigorously re-endorse ethically acceptable answers to the AIDS crisis,
namely, the virtue of chastity and abstinence."
But others point to what they say is Benedict's capacity to
surprise, using the shorthand of "Nixon-in-China" to make the case that
a hard-liner could, without reversing church doctrine, more easily make
such a change.
A change would address a relatively small part of the problem since
most transmission of AIDS is not between married couples. But if
Benedict did so, "it will have a huge influence," said Rebecca
Schleifer, a researcher on AIDS issues for Human Rights Watch, though
that influence may be exactly what many in the Vatican fear.
She and other experts said it could help break down resistance to
condom use in places like the Philippines or parts of Africa where
Catholic officials or clerics have a large influence.
"The church taking a step forward in saying, 'They do work and we
believe in them in this situation,' is important to help protect the
lives and health of millions of people around the world," Ms. Schleifer
said.
_______________
mp
