On last week's Sunday Sequence, while the story of the Pope's " change in policy on the use of condoms in the fight against HIV and Aids was breaking across the world, I advised our listeners to wait for a Vatican clarification. It wasn't at all clear just what the Pope was now saying -- it was "as clear as mud" I suggested to Austen Ivereagh, who tried his best to bring some clarity to a confusing statement. And it wasn't at all clear that the Pope had changed the church's policy on the use of condoms in the fight against Aids at all. The Vatican press office , and now, mid-week, we have , but there remain outstanding questions.
Here's what we know with some confidence. The Pope and the Catholic Church that using a condom for the purposes of artificial contraception is a gravely sinful act. The Pope has now told us that if a male or female prostitute uses a condom in an effort to prevent HIV infection, that person's desire to use a condom may be indicative of a moral awakening on their part. In other words, their effort to protect themselves or their sexual partner is a morally laudatory concern. But it does not follow from this that the Pope believes condoms are "morally justified" even in those cases.
This is where the Pope's statement gets a bit fuzzier. If the prostitute's decision to use a condom is a step in the right direction, because their choice is based on a laudatory concern to block an infection rather than merely to prevent a pregnancy, shouldn't the church encourage all prostitutes to use condoms? And if the use of condoms by a prostitute in an effort to prevent HIV infection can be laudatory, shouldn't the church also encourage all married couples where one of the partners is HIV-positive to similarly use a condom in order to prevent HIV infection while continuing to enjoy sex within their marriage? Some commentators are now speaking as if the Vatican has already said Yes to both of those questions. In fact, the Vatican has -- scrupulously or otherwise -- avoided dealing with these scenarios in recent days.
Why the silence on those key questions? Here's one possible answer. Because the answer is too complicated to explain simply to a mass-media world. An analogy will help. Imagine a criminal who decides to rob a bank using a fake gun rather than a real gun. Robbing a bank is morally wrong in either case, but most people would accept that a bank robber who uses a fake gun is demonstrating more concern for possible victims than a robber who carries a loaded real gun. How, then, should we evaluate the morality of these cases? Both robberies are morally wrong -- they are both grave crimes. Is the use of a fake gun "morally justified" because it is likely to cause less harm? Certainly not. The robber who decides to carry a fake gun rather than a loaded real gun has made a moral choice and he has chosen the lesser of two evils, but he has still committed a morally unjustifed action.
This analogy is, I think, close to what Pope Benedict has now told us about his views on the use of condoms in the fight against HIV. Prostitution is, according to the Pope, a sinful relationship. A prostitute who uses a condom is morally akin to a bank robber who carries a fake gun. The prostitute's use of the condom is not morally "justified"; it is, rather, the lesser of two evils. So, when you see headlines claiming the "Pope says condoms are OK" or "Pope Benedict says condoms may sometimes be morally justified", one can see why a journalist with a deadline would run the story that way, but it does not represent the Pope's view.
Now back to the key scenarios I mentioned earlier. What advice should the Catholic Church offer to bishops and priests, particularly those working in sub-Saharan Africa where 70 per cent of the world's HIV infections are to be found? When they meet a married couple of mixed HIV status and the couple ask if they can continue to enjoy sex as part of their marriage, what pastoral advice should they be given? If the couple's intention is not to prevent pregnancy but to protect each other from infection, they are surely manifesting a morally laudable concern for each other's well-being. In the recent past, for advising these couples that the use of a condom in such morally-fraught circumstances is a step in the right direction. Let's see how the Vatican will respond now to those bishops and priests who feel empowered by Pope Benedict's comments to support a couple's choice to use a condom in those circumstances or to distribute condoms themselves.
But I would not expect the Vatican to now say it is "OK" to use a condom in those cases, even in the case of the prostitute, any more than I would expect the Vatican to announce that the use of a fake gun in a bank robbery is "morally justified". Can you imagine hearing a priest using a homily to recommend to his parishioners that, if they plan to rob a bank in the near future they should use a fake gun rather than a real gun? I suspect the Pope would similarly struggle to imagine himself giving a sermon recommending the use of a condom in any circumstances. From what I can tell, after seven days of journalistic dust has settled on this controversy, the Pope has not changed the Catholic Church's policy on the use or distribution of condoms in the fight against HIV: he continues to believe that to the global HIV crisis and that condoms could, in fact, . Saying that a condom can sometimes be the lesser of two evils is like saying that fake guns are sometimes less evil than real guns: it doesn't follow that you are endorsing the use of fake guns or calling for their widespread distribution in the fight against violent crime.
For what it's worth, that's my reading of this confusing week in the history of Catholic social teaching. But the next clarification from the Vatican could change everything.
