Bishop Cesare Bonivento Pime

BISHOP CESARE BONIVENTO PIME

AIDS AND CONDOMS

THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH

PASTORAL LETTER

TO THE PRIEST OF VANIMO DIOCESE

2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction p.

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

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
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 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:

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:

The teaching of the Church on contraception. ( cf. Chapter 2)

The continuity between the teaching of the Church on contraception and Humanae Vitae.(cf. Chapter 3)

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

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 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 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]