THE TEACHINGS OF THE LOCAL CHURCH ON HUMAN SEXUALITY
Question 5: Do you think that people consider the teachings of the Church on human sexuality in their decisions on sex and sexual matters?
5.3 DISSENTING VOICES
5.3.1 CONTINUING THE CONVERSATION
A transcript of the document:
CONTINUING THE CONVERSATION•••
A RESPONSE TO THE RECENT STATEMENTS MADE BY BISHOP KEVIN DOWLING AFTER THE UN AIDS CONFERENCE (9/7/20001)
AND BY THE SACBC ("MESSAGE OF HOPE", 30/2001) ON THE ETHICS OF USING CONDOMS TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF
AIDS
We, the Sisters of Justice of Johannesburg, wish to comment on the recent statement by Bishop Kevin Dowling after the United Nations Special Assembly on AIDS held in June this year and the Southern African Catholic Bishops' Statement, A Message of Hope, issued in July. There has been a great deal of press coverage of these two statements in recent weeks and we wish to be part of this important debate, which is in fact not only around the use of condoms but includes much wider concerns such as the link between HIY/AIDS and the moral fibre of the nation. Sexuality, the oppression of women and unjust socio-economic conditions are critical related issues.
We are given hope by the fact that the SACBC statement contains not only moral norms but also the emergence of the pastoral application of those norms in the case of married people when one of them is IDV positive. Such people are encouraged to "listen to their consciences" and make an appropriate decision. We would like to see conscience formation and personal
responsibility explained and promoted more widely and in reference to other ethical decisions and situations, since it is consonant with human dignity.
We ask ourselves for whom the SACBC statement is in fact a message of hope? Upholding ethical and moral norms in one thing, but the pastoral application of such norms to people's lives is another. Itis the
contextualization, the pastoral application of the moral norms in the Message of Hope that concerns us. For many women, the SACBC message in its present form will not be one of hope.
The indiscriminate use of condoms is not at issue in this debate. Neither Bishop Dowling's statement nor the Message of Hope considers this morally acceptable. Abstention before and fidelity within marriage are the only real safeguards against IDV/AIDS and upholding these moral norms builds the moral fibre of the nation. One would expect the bishops to uphold these norms, as they and we do. However, there are other Christian Church leaders
who have pledged themselves to the moral renewal of the country as the Catholic bishops have done, and who are just as committed to building the moral fibre of the nation Many of these promote the use of condoms to reduce the rate of infection and death and do not see this as an undermining the coherence of their stance and message. Professor Jerry Coovadia, engaged in lllV/AIDS research at Natal University, has said that "faith communities have done significant work in many African countries in helping to reduce the impact of the epidemic by combining religious principles with an
understanding that not everyone subscribes to these values." (Sunday Times, 22 July 2001)
We support Bishop Dowling's pastoral application of the moral norms in the context of complex, ambiguous and often unjust socio-economic situations.
We are deeply concerned about patriarchal attitudes which lead to severe discrimination against many women and girl children, the serious gender imbalance and inequalitye~.'perienced by women in terms of sexual relationships and the fact that so many women have no say over their lives, much less over their bodies. We are also aware of the plight of women who are forced into desperate situations that might put them more at risk of infection.
Phrases such as "the beautiful act of love" and "equal and loving partners"
seem to us to direct the Message of Hope to people who are in fairly healthy and stable marriage relationships, but not to people, usually women, in abusive, oppressive or desperate relationships or circumstances and who are very much at risk of being infected by the lllV. We share Bishop Dowling"s and other bishops' compassion for these women. It is entirely within the context of the AIDS pandemic in our country that the use of condoms to prevent infection, of one's sexual partner could be seen to be permissible.
The Message of Hope supports the principle that "everyone has the right to defend one's life against mortal danger". The reference is to married couples where one of the partners is living with lllV/AIDS and in an indirect way, without the word "condom, the statement opens the door to some form of self- protection. "
Onthe principle that everyone has the right to defend his or her life against mortal danger, those who (often most unwilling) are the sexual partners of people who have AIDS would also be able to a make decision to use the appropriate means and course of action, even if they are not married. It is precisely this defence of one's life that is the central issues in Bishop Dowling's pastoral stance.
The use of a condom for the sake of defending life is morally defensible according to the principle of double effect. This principle is applied when a terminallyill patient is in great pain and is given high doses of morphine. The primary objective is the relief of pain, even though the other effect is the possible shortening of the person's life. Or a woman is permitted to take the
"pill" to regulate dysfunctional menstruation even though she is rendered infertile while taking it. Inthe same way, it would surely be morally
defensible to resort to the use of a condom to prevent infection by
mv,
eventhough the possible prevention of conception is the other effect of condom use.
Itis in the context of such desperate situations that we feel people should be educated to make responsible decisions and take appropriate action. This is the "grey area", not addressed in the SACBC statement, that we feel needs to be addressed. It seems unreasonable and unjust to insist that people in desperate strains should adhere absolutely to standards that describe the morally correct response of people living in fully human situations and conditions. This view is a very far cry from the "indiscriminate use of condoms".
James Keenan, S.1., professor of moral theology at Weston School of Theology, and others, who have entered this debate, also invoke the principle of the "lesser evil." This applies, says Keenan, "to those sexual relations that occur outside the context of marriage. The Catholic Church has long held that any sexual activity outside of marriage is morally wrong because it violates the principle of chastity. In a time of AIDS, such sexual activity could also cause the transmission oflllV and this would violate the principle ofjustice, because by unprotected se.,xual activity one could infect another with the deadly virus. The principle of the lesser evil means that the wrongdoing against chastity remains so, but without condom use, the sexual action would also violate justice. The principle of the lesser evil does not diminish the agent's violation of chastity. Rather, the principle is concerned solely with another evil being added to the moral wrongfulness of the action, that is, the agent's violation of justice". (Keenan's paper on the SACBC statement).
Unfortunately, a woman who is dominated by a man is hardly able to ask for the use of a condom However, if either person is infected, the decision to use a condom shows some measure of responsibility, according to the principle of the lesser evil.
Or Ingrid Skakal, a Catholic doctor in Johannesburg who has significant exposure to people with lllV/AIDS, writes: "At the recent WONCA- World Organisation of Family Doctors - Conference, Prof Helen Rees of SA stated that violence plays as significant part both in the acquisition oflllV /AIDS and as a sequel thereof Itis estimated that nearly one third of pregnancies in the 14 to 19 year-old age group occur as a result of rape and reluctant sexual intercourse."Itis imperative that girls and women be provided with the information and the mean to protect themselves in abusive relationships. This point was well made at the UN Special Assembly on AIDS by the Prime Minister Pascoal Mocumbi of Mozambique on 25 June 2001. He said: "We need to develop protection methods like rnicrobicides that women can use with or without a partner's knowledge or co-operation". One wonders whether female condoms would no be one of the more effective methods of protection for women who are at risk.
"Condoms do not guarantee protection against AIDS". This is an uncontested fact. Poor quality or faulty use means that there is no guarantee of protection.
However, we question the statement in the Message of Hope that condoms may be "one of the main reasons for the spread oflllV/AIDS." Professor
Louise Kuhnm and epidemiologist engaged in full-time AIDS research at Columbia University, states that "the efficacy of condoms to prevent transmission is well-established scientifically..(Email response to SACBC Statement, 14/8/2001). Prof James McIntyre of the prenatal IDV unit at Wits University and Professor Coovadia are quotedinThe Tablet of 28 July and in the Sunday Times of22 July as stating that many international and national scientific studies show that condoms, if properly and consistently used, "have played a significant part in preventing transmission of the virus from an infected partner to the uninfected partner."
The bishopsinthe SACBC statement cannot be denying any valueinthe use of condoms if they permit their use (as is suggested) in defending the uninfected partner in a marital relationship. If what they really mean is that education about condoms, or their availability, may lead to an increase in promiscuity there is evidence to the contrary. Fuller and Keenan state: "Ithas now been well demonstrated that education which includes information about the appropriate use of condoms does not increase the rate of sexual
intercourse, and in fact can lead to a delay in the age of first intercourse.
Numerous studies, (from Uganda, Senegal, Thailand, among others) have demonstrated that educational programmes which discuss intercourse and which also encourage a delay in the age of first condoms and a reduction in the number of sexual partners can make enormous strides in decreasing new lllV infections as well as other STDs". (Catholic Ethicists on IDV/AIDS Prevention, Continuum 2000, p35)
Itseems clear, from the preceding discussion and from what many people who have entered the debate are saying, that the condom issue is only a surface issue. What is on the table now is about much more than condoms. Itis about the kind of Church we would like to be as we reach out in compassion, as disciples of Jesus, to those who are in mortal danger and have no other means of protecting themselves. Itis about the way we feel for people in complex socio-cultural-economic situations; people who do not live in regular, equal and loving relationships. Itis about educating people so that their consciences are formed in making responsible moral choices. Itis about our
accompaniment of young people, and particularly of young women, at this crucial time in their lives, as they face choices that are about life and death. It is about how we search humbly and sincerely for truth, justice and
compassion without seeing everything in "black and white" terms as though there are no grey areas in between. And, finally, it is about gender imbalances in society and Church; about the ongoing injustice, violence and
discrimination against women. The IDV/AIDS pandemic, with all its ramifications, calls us urgently to address the issues of social, economic, and racial and gender injustice, which make our country so vulnerable to the spread of the virus.
As Ingrid Skakal points out: ''To reserve the ethical debate to those who are privileged enough to have stable, caring relationships is to exclude large
numbers of the population and will continue to ignore the need for women to develop a voice in their destiny. "
We must continue to address these issues. Teresa Malcolm (NCR, 10/8/2001) citing Fuller, declares; "The statement from the Southern African Bishops certainly does not end the conversation. Itshould further stimulate dialogue on this question, what are our priorities here - defending an ethic of sexuality or protecting lives?"
(End of transcription.)
For the Sisters for Justice this debate is not really about the use of condoms. Itis a debate that includes issues such as the link between lllV1AIDS and the moral fi bre of society, the oppression of women and the unjust socio-econornic conditions. The moral norms and the pastoral application of those norms when one of the married partners is
mv
positive give hope. Such people should listen to their conscience and make an appropriate decision. The Sisters for Justice would like to see conscience formation and personal responsibility explained and promoted more widely to include other areas of life.The pastoral application of these norms is a concern for the Sisters for Justice. The sisters believe that for many women this statement from the SACBC will not be one of hope. Abstention before, and fidelity within marriage are the only real safeguards againstlllVIAIDS. These are important norms as they build up the moral fibre of the nation. They support Dowling 's pastoral application of the moral norms in the complex context of our situation. They are concerned about the patriarchal attitudes that discriminate against women. Their concern also is about the gender imbalance that leads to women having no say over their bodies. This also leads women to be forced into desperate situations, putting them more at the risk of infection. Itis within such contexts that the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS can be seen to be permissible. The SACBC does open a door to some form of self-
protection, without using the word 'condom'. Even those who are not married have the right to defend their lives against mortal danger,iftheir sexual partner has AIDS.Itis important to note that some of the women are unwilling sexual partners.
This desperate situation that the Sisters for Justice call the'grey area', is not addressed in the SACBC statement. Itis therefore unreasonable to expect people in
these desperate situations to adhere to standards for people in fully human situations and conditions. They refer to the principle of the lesser evil, which means that if a woman uses a condom, where a partner isI-llVpositive, outside marriage, she is showing some measure of responsibility. Although it is an uncontested fact that condoms do not guarantee protection against AIDS the Sisters for Justice question the SACBC statement that condoms may be one of the main reasons for the spread of AIDS. For them the SACBC statement seems to suggest that the availability of condoms may lead to an increase in promiscuity. They hold that there is evidence to the contrary. Numerous studies in Uganda and Senegal, among others, have shown that information on condoms can result decreasing new lllV infections.In conclusion they state that condom use is only a surface issue here. What is at stake here is the kind of Church we would like to be as we reach out in compassion to those in mortal danger.