Many have written asking for my take on the Pope’s comments about condom usage. I cannot, and will not comment on the moral dimensions of this issue as regards the use of condoms in light of Humanae Vitae. However, I think there is a scientfic dimension that has been overlooked here, and that dimension yields to a larger moral dimension.
Over at Deacon Greg Kandra’s blog, Reverend E.J. Cappelletti writes the following on this subject:
“I was ordained in 1950. The teaching at that time was quite clear on this matter. It is a case of double effect. If an action has two effects one good and one bad, provided that one does not will the bad effect, he or she is free to choose the good effect.
“Using a condom to avoid infecting a spouse is a good effect, preventing conception is the morally bad effect. One is free to choose the good effect.”
My response to Rev. Cappelletti:
The problem that I have with all of this is that the Pope is speaking on a more academic plane. The reality of condoms is that they have a 15% failure rate during typical use, as opposed to ideal use. This failure rate is established for use in married couples as evidenced by pregnancy as the definition of failure, and is contained within the textbook: Contraceptive Technology, which is the family planner’s bible.
With that number, 80% of all couples using condoms as their sole means of contracepting will conceive within ten years.
Now, this failure rate is established for pregnancy, which involves a five day window out of a 30 day month. Condom failures take place on the other 25 days, but are not included in the failure rate, because pregnancy is being used as the indicator of failure.
Even when having sex without any contraception at all, on an every-other-day basis, people have only a 15% chance of conceiving. So the truth of the matter is that condoms have a much, much, higher failure rate than 15% during typical use. In dealing with the transmissibility of HIV, this is catastrophic.
Improper storage temperatures during shipping and handling in summer and winter weaken the structural integrity of the latex, with the consumer having no way of verifying how well the condoms have been handled. The list of issues is endless.
So when the Holy Father spoke, his commentary didn’t seem to include the issues surrounding condom integrity and failure rate. Quite frankly, I’m alarmed at the Pandora’s box that has been opened. In light of the failure rates of condoms, the ONLY loving response on the part of the HIV+ person is to refrain from sex for the rest of that individual’s life. No loving person would take the chance of endangering the life of another.
My wife is a nurse and I am a medical microbiologist and this issue was vetted fully when we were engaged. We both agreed that if either of us ever contracted HIV during an occupational exposure that we would never again have sex, and that our abstinence would be the highest expression of intimacy and authentic love.
We stand by that today, eighteen years later. This has nothing to do with double-effect. This is about learning sacrificial love by dying to self so that others might live.
Brilliant! I knew it was high but I didn’t even know the stats were this high on condom failure. I love your deductions.
As for your comment on abstaining for love’s sake, that truly proves to me what I have thought of you. You are a man of great integrity. A man of God!
Thank you for having the humility of commenting only on your area of expertise, and the depth of your moral integrity. If only such wisdom and love prevailed in the chaotic debate which the Holy Father’s statements have caused.
Let’s pray that this will encourage more people to read the entire interview and see his words in context.
Dr G
Thanks for the info. Very informative.
PG
Thank you for giving us the scientific perspective on this issue. You’ve provided excellent talking points in case the subject comes up at the Thanksgiving table with all the relatives. (I hope it doesn’t!)
Have a wonderful holiday. God Bless!
Thanks, All.
Janet,
If the subject arises, just tell folks that the only “dressing” under discussion is that accompanying the turkey!
God Bless, and have a blessed Thanksgiving.
With all respect, and with appreciation for your comments from a scientific POV, I disagree that the Pope is speaking on a more “academic” plane. I took him as speaking on a subjective plane, speaking to the possible subjective disposition of someone engaging in grossly immoral acts, beginning to move to a greater awareness of the effects of his actions upon others. I thought it was clear that he was recognizing that there could very well be good intent behind using condoms to try to prevent spreading disease to others, but then he reiterated that this is not the answer.
Deacon Kandra is simply mistaken that the principle of double effect can possibly apply, and the Church has been clear that the use of condoms is inherently disordered and always will be, because it is directly contrary to the nature of the act. By his reasoning, we should be able to put people with serious communicable diseases to death for the good effect of preventing disease, too–but we can’t, because murder is inherently disordered and however much you talk about the good effects, you are *directly intending* the death of an innocent person. Likewise with the condom you are *directly intending* the disordered act and that is not permissible no matter how many great effects there are. Deacon Kandra is confusing the idea of double effect with the very ancient and destructive idea that the ends justify the means.
Rebecca,
Your points are well made and well taken. For the sake of clarity, the comments about double-effect were made by a priest at Deacon Kandra’s blog, and not by Deacon Kandra himself. I quite agree with your assessment of the use of double-effect here.
“I took him as speaking on a subjective plane, speaking to the possible subjective disposition of someone engaging in grossly immoral acts, beginning to move to a greater awareness of the effects of his actions upon others. I thought it was clear that he was recognizing that there could very well be good intent behind using condoms to try to prevent spreading disease to others, but then he reiterated that this is not the answer.”
I completely concur with you on this Rebecca and this is also the position (I believe) of Father Fessio and a number of other well known observers.
Sadly this message is not getting out and many many Catholics falsely believe that church teaching has now changed.
Obviously there is some sort of element within “L’Osservatore Romano which is determined to thwart Pope Benedict’s pontificate at every turn. It seems to be diabolical to me and I’m at a loss as to why the Vatican does not clean house.
This seems to be a particular suffering our Holy Father has been chosen to endure.
My goodness, I apologize for not noticing from your post that it was not the Deacon but Rev. Cappelletti that wrote the comment!
The Pope is a very intelligent man. Surely he knew the effects his words would have, and likely chose them very carefully.
I wonder, why did he say them at? Why didn’t he just reiterate the official stance against the use of any artificial contraception? Why did he choose to express that particular opinion?
I am very curious to see what he has to say next.
Hi L.
I think you make a very good point, and I agree. Here is one person’s explanation to your query.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/11/the-pope-knew-what-he-was-setting-off/
I think he is right. God love you.
An interesting take on more of what the Pope said: http://www.ucanews.com/2010/11/24/the-institutional-church-is-bankrupt-now-what/
Also, I thought about it a lot, and I have to disagree with the sentiment that the ONLY loving response on the part of the HIV+ person is to refrain from sex for the rest of that individual’s life. I don’t mean to denigrate the loving vow your wife and you made to each other, Dr. Nadal, which is truly quite beautiful and touching — I just don’t see it as the only loving option.
If my husband were HIV+, I would never withhold myself from him out of fear. I would be upset if he withheld himself from me, when I would be willing to do all I could to reduce the risks and then accept the small chance of contracting it — especially since it’s treatable now, and is no longer the death sentence it was 20 years ago. Perhaps I would feel differently, depending on the odds, in different situations. I can just imagine circumstances other than the “ONLY” one.
Similarly, I have been told by some people that since I would have an abortion if a pregnancy ever endangered my health, then the ONLY loving response for someone with this thinking is to totally refrain from sex, and avoid creating any poor doomed babies. But instead, I am willing to do all I can to reduce the risks, and live with the small chance that I might be bringing upon myself the circumstances in which I would choose abortion.
Also, this is just anecdotal, but I believe most condoms fail because the wearer isn’t careful about keeping them on, when he’s finished. I have heard very few stories about condoms breaking or leaking (and have never experienced it myself, even though it has been one of my main forms of contraception for nearly 30 years). However, I have heard many sad tales of the rain gear sliding off, so to speak.
“If my husband were HIV+, I would never withhold myself from him out of fear.”
No it is out of charity and love for the other person. The fear would be the possibility of infecting your spouse with a deadly disease.
If your husband had a gun and he knew of the chambers had a bullet in it would you want him to fire it at you? Would he want to fire it at you? I don’t believe so. He would not use the gun.
I disagree Bobby with Fr Z’s post. I think Benedict’s words were deliberately twisted and that there is a serious problem with the Vatican newspaper – someone knew to leak probably the most controversial quote in the entire book.
Oh no doubt, MC. The Vatican newspaper has been an abomination since that new editor and of course, the most “controversial” was indeed leaked on purpose. But I would then say that it is both. I think that is consistant with the idea that BXVI knew it would be the most controversial, knew it would be the only quote picked up by the MSM, and knew that it would be twisted by many. So I think it is both/and.
hmmm, perhaps you are right. I guess time will tell.
I only hope that some Catholics will not be discouraged by all this.
Benedict is a wonderful pope and incredibly intelligent. But I believe he has much to suffer…..
George Weigel’s summation with Janet Smith analogy concerning Pope Benedict16:
“And here is Sacred Heart Major Seminary professor Janet Smith’s illustration of the technical point the pope was actually making, which touches on the question of what philosophers and theologians call subjective intention:
If someone was going to rob a bank and was determined to use a gun, it would be better for that person to use a gun that had no bullets in it [for that] would reduce the likelihood of fatal injuries. But it is not the task of the Church to instruct potential bank robbers how to rob banks more safely and certainly not the task of the Church to support programs of providing potential bank robbers with guns that could not use bullets. Nonetheless, the intent of a bank robber to rob a bank in a way that is safer for employees and customers of the bank may indicate an element of moral responsibility that could be a step towards eventual understanding of the immorality of bank robbing.”