May 2006 – Page 9 – Jimmy Akin

Ex Post Facto Laws By Another Name

I was really interested to read THIS ARTICLE BY THOMAS SOWELL ABOUT JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS.

Sowell is my favorite economist, and Thomas is my favorite justice. I mean, he totally ROCKS! He’s even better than Scalia. It’s too bad cloning is immoral (and takes too long, and doesn’t transfer memories), because I’d love to have a court packed with nine of him.

Here’s a neat piece in Sowell’s article that hits the nail on the head regarding how judicial activism amounts to the creation of ex post facto laws:

In one of his dissenting opinions, Justice Thomas declared that the Supreme Court was making "policy-laden judgments that we are ill equipped and arguably unauthorized to make" — and that this represented "functioning more as legislators than as judges."

He added: "The outcome of constitutional cases ought to rest on firmer ground than the personal preferences of judges."

That firmer ground is the original meaning of a law when it was passed. If that meaning needs to be changed, then it is up to elected officials to change it, not judges. That is what the democratic process is for.

When legislators change a law, that change is announced, so that everyone knows what is and is not illegal from now on. But when judges change the law by reinterpreting it, based on the "evolving standards" of a "living constitution," nobody knows that they have violated the law until after the fact, when it is too late.

Retrospective laws are expressly forbidden by the constitution. But the "evolving standards" of a "living constitution" amount to retrospective laws by another name.

Quite so.

Also, here’s a nice bit regarding whether Ten Commandments displays constitute an establishment of religion (which in the Constitution means creating an official state religion equivalent to the Church of England but which has been obscenely misinterpreted by the Supreme Court in recent years):

Justice Thomas has . . . refused to read the constitution’s ban on an "establishment of religion" as if it meant a "wall of separation" between church and state, requiring the obliteration of religious symbols from public property.

There is no such wall in the constitution, and an "establishment of religion" had a very plain and limited meaning when those words were written — a coerced support for a government-designated religion. Justice Thomas’ opinions often go back into history to show what the constitution’s original meaning was.

In response to someone who wanted the Ten Commandments removed from a courthouse, Justice Thomas said: "He need not stop to read it or even look at it, let alone express support for it or adopt the Commandments as guides for his life." There was "no coercion" as there was when there was an establishment of religion.

READ THE WHOLE THING.

More On The Chinese Consecrations

Ed Peters has updated his original post on the Chinese episcopal consecrations and has included a new argument. Referencing a Vatican press statement (which unfortunately is only in Italian, it seems), he writes (EXCERPTS):

The comment about bishops and priests being "greatly pressured and threatened" ( I can imagine) to take part in the ordinations raises fresh concerns, I suggest, about their validity. See 1983 CIC 125, etc.

Analogy: Two Catholics free to marry, but under ecclesiastical precept not to marry one another (1983 CIC 1077), and neither of them wanting to marry each other, are forced by government officials to go through a wedding ceremony together. Any guesses as to how many ways such a sacramental "marriage" could be declared null?

This is an argument that deserves to be taken seriously. If you pressure someone to perform a sacrament then you can get them into a state of mind in which they withhold–or are unable to generate–the intention necessary to perform the sacrament. Thus the first canon that Ed links provides that

Can. 125

§1. [A juridic] act placed out of force inflicted on a person from without, which the person was not able to resist in any way, is considered as never to have taken place.

§2. An act placed out of grave fear, unjustly inflicted, or out of malice is valid unless the law provides otherwise. It can be rescinded, however, through the sentence of a judge, either at the instance of the injured party or of the party’s successors in law, or ex officio.

As you can see §1 of this canon provides that completely irresistible force would invalidate (since episcopal consecrations are juridic acts). However, it is not clear that this form of force was used in the Chinese consecrations.

This canon distinguishes in §1 and §2 between force and fear, and some commentators–such as the authors of the Red Code–hold that the former refers only to irresistible physical force. The distinction between the forms of coercion in §1 and §2 would then be that the former deals with physical coercion and the latter with mental coercion.

The green CLSA commentary notes that some commentators regard the force in question only as physical force, though it adds that other commentators think that irresistible coercion of a psychic or chemical nature could also qualify if they sufficiently destroy the subject’s ability to exercise the will such that no human act takes place.

Despite the proximity of these episcopal consecrations to Manchuria, it is not clear that any Manchurian Candidate-like force has been brought to bear on the individuals performing (or receiving) the consecrations and rendered them unable to perform the act validly.

Evidence of such force might emerge in the future, but it has not emerged to date, so far as I know.

We may more safely presume, instead, that the parties acted under fear of the Chinese authorities–and indeed the press statement that Dr. Peters cites refers to pressure and threats, which would seem to indicate fear–thus placing the act under the heading of §2 of the canon.

If that is the case then the law would hold that such an episcopal consecration, "placed out of grave fear, unjustly inflicted, or out of malice is valid unless the law provides otherwise."

Thus in the absence of a canon expressly providing for the invalidity of such consecrations, §2 would lead us to conclude that the consecrations were valid if what was present here was grave fear rather than irresistible force.

(Incidentally, note that this canon expressly speaks of validity if a juridical act is placed out of malice, like the "Stick it to the Catholic Church" motive that the Chinese authorities are presumed to have. They weren’t the ones performing the consecrations–those were performed by bishops–but the canon seems to indicate that even if the bishops themselves had a "Stick it ot the Vatican" motive that the consecrations would be valid, per my previous post.)

It could emerge that a form of invalidating coercion was used in these cases, but until evidence of this emerges–or until another invalidating ground is found–the Church’s presumption would be expressed by the previous canon:

Can. 124

§2. A juridic act placed correctly with respect to its external elements is presumed valid.

It Only Takes One

Canonist Edward Peters has a disturbing question:

The excommunications consequent to the illicit episcopal ordinations (1983 CIC 1382) staged by Chinese Communists are so obvious that few commentators have mentioned them. Here I raise a different question: In the face of some sacraments being so obviously celebrated with no discernible pastoral sense and, in fact, driven by little besides a "let’s stick it to the Catholic Church" animus, has the time come to step back and ask some hard questions about the canonical validity of such sacraments?

READ THE WHOLE THING.

Dr. Peters (I’m using his title here to underscore his credentials; in personal conversations he’s "Ed") elaborates by raising the question of whether the episcopal consecrations recently performed at the behest of the Chinese government contain the form of intention that is required for sacramental validity.

He cites the recent case of Mormon baptism being ruled invalid apparently on grounds of inadequate intention as a parallel case.

One could further add the invalidity of Anglican orders due (in part) to a defect of intention.

While it is true that correct intention is an essential element that must be present for the valid celebration of a sacrament, I am not sure that grounds have been offered to question the validity of the Chinese episcopal consecrations.

It is true that these consecrations seem to have a "Let’s stick it to the Catholic Church" motive, which renders them not only illicit but also sacrilegious, but the motive leading one to commit a sacrilegious act does not invalidate one’s intention in performing the act.

Suppose, for example–and God forbid–that a priest was really mad at Jesus and decided to say Mass and consecrate a Host so that he could spit on it and thus "stick it to Jesus" by his act of defiance. In this situation the priest’s motive for performing the consecration is sacrilegious, but it does not affect his intention to really and truly bring about the consecration of the elements. Indeed, his ability to "stick it to Jesus" by spitting on the host is predicated on him really and truly performing the consecration of the elements so that Jesus will be present to be spat on.

We needn’t even go so far as this kind of outright sacrilege to illustrate the issue. In principle, priests should always celebrate Mass for pious spiritual reasons, like fulfilling the will of God and bringing salvation to the world, but in particular cases they may have much more mediocre motives, like showing up to say Mass just because it is expected of them by their bishop or by the congregation who will be present.

In this case we have a situation where the motive is sub-ideal but is not the kind of direct sacrilege mentioned in the first example.

In fact, they may have a mediocre motive alongside a dim awareness that they are saying Mass also for spiritual reasons, in which case we have a situation of mixed motives.

Humans often have mixed motives for the same act–some good, some indifferent, and some bad–and this applies across the board to the sacraments.

But the Church has never judged that the motive for performing a sacrament is essential to its validity.

It thus seems to me that we have to distinguish between two different things: the intention to perform the sacrament and the motive for performing the sacrament. It’s the difference between what you’re trying to do and why you’re trying to do it. The first affects the validity of the sacrament; the second does not. You can have a good or bad or indifferent motive for performing a sacrament. What counts for validity is whether or not you intend to do what the Church does in performing the sacrament.

If you want to stick it to the Vatican by consecrating a bishop then that entails the intention to consecrate a bishop, just as if you want to consecrate a Host so you can spit on it then that entails the intention to consecrate a Host.

I thus do not see a theoretical basis for challenging the validity
of the Chinese episcopal consecrations on the grounds that the Chinese
government ordered them in order to stick it to the Vatican.

But let’s switch from the theoretical to the practical for a moment.

Here’s what Catholic News Service is reporting about who did the ordaining:

Nine papally approved bishops from the government-approved church ordained Bishop Ma, UCA News reported. Of the five government-approved bishops named as ordaining Bishop Lui, at least four are known to have reconciled with the Vatican. Other concelebrants included about 30 Chinese priests and some visiting priests from overseas [SOURCE].

So in the case of both consecrations, bishops who are approved by or otherwise reconciled with the Holy See were serving as consecrators of the new bishops.

While we can never know the heart of another with certainty, I find it likely that–in a delicate situation like this one where bishops who are reconciled with Rome are being ordered by a totalitarian government to perform an episcopal consecration–that some of them would be saying to themselves, "Y’know, I really, really hate the fact that I’m being ordered to do this, and the guy being consecrated may hate it, too, but the reality is that he’s going to have to function as a bishop from here on out, and I’m going to do my part to ensure that he becomes one, lest further confusion and chaos be sown into an already bad situation. I want the situation of the official church in China to be made better, not worse, when the hoped-for full reconciliation with Rome finally happens, and so I’m really and truly intending to consecrate this guy as a bishop."

All it takes is one such person for the intention in conferring the consecration to be valid.

Switching from the practical mode to the legal mode, Dr. Peters of course knows that the Catholic Church would (barring anything unforeseen coming to light) regard these episcopal consecrations as illicit but valid. His point was to question whether this presumption on the part of the Church should be re-thought, and it is reasonable to ask what kind of intention is needed for the performance of the sacraments.

This is an area where there is still room for clarification, though the Church’s historic presumption has been that only a very general kind of intention is needed for sacramental validity–which I think is both a good thing and by divine design, for if we had to have narrowly particular intentions in performing sacraments then there would be massive numbers of invalid sacraments out there. Knowing our weaknesses and our fallen state–and, in fact, having given us the sacraments precisely in order to address our weaknesses and our fallen state–God made the sacraments like Tonka Trucks: They’re hard to break, even for play-fast-and-rough kids like us.

We can abuse them–by things like liturgical abuses or sacrilege–but it’s hard for us to destroy them. Illiceity is easy; invalidity is hard.

I’m thus pleased to say that, while Dr. Peters’ question is a good one, I don’t see a theoretical or practical reason for challenging the validity of these consecrations.

Good News, Everyone!

A few weeks ago John Allen sat down for pizza with

SOME YOUNG CATHOLICS IN THE GREAT STATE OF TEXAS.

His observations of them were refreshing (EXCERPTS):

What became clear is that these young people are deeply "intentional" Catholics, meaning that in this day and age, their faith is not something they picked up in the air, but the result of a personal process of thought and decision. They didn’t start out as believers and only later discover that some aspects of church teaching are counter-cultural; they know the broader culture is hostile to some of what the church stands for, and have made a conscious decision to embrace it anyway.

All expressed deep admiration for Pope John Paul II.

Pushing these young Catholics to dig deeper, to look at the church "warts and all," I learned that their frustrations are rarely the ones that journalists and sociologists usually assume they should have — teachings on birth control and homosexuality, for example, or power in the church.

Instead, their major complaint seemed to be with pedagogy and communications.

Religious education and preaching, they said, rarely offers the meaty content that a Catholic needs. Further, they said, even when the church does provide solid content, it rarely does so in an accessible, engaging way.

In other words, these 20-somethings share something of the desire of the Vatican II generation for a more "modern" church — but, unlike Baby Boomers, by "modern" they mean technological sophistication and savvy about engaging the cultural debate, not doctrinal change or structural reform.

So things are looking up for Catholic orthodoxy–at least among this group of young Texans.

But they did have some complaints:

Several expressed frustration, for example, with the limited use made by the Vatican and the U.S. bishops of the Internet.

Maria Fredericks, 19, an honors major, said she had occasionally visited the Vatican Web site, but that it is "difficult to use" and largely offers lengthy texts.

"I want bullet points," she said. "I want easy-to-digest pieces. I want this to be presented in ways that will actually reach people."

When I suggested that putting a couple of them to work for an afternoon would likely produce a much snappier Internet operation for the church, heads nodded aggressively.

And these insightful young Texans are putting their fingers on something we all know: The Vatican website, such as it is . . . well . . . stinks.

I mean, <hyperbole>a lobotomized web designer with one half of his brains left in a glass by his toothbrush in the morning could do better.</hyperbole>

The current site is way too focused on art and dignity and far too little focused on functionality (not to mention having timely updates and translations).

But there’s good news, everyone! According to Zenit, there’s a new Vatican web site in the works:

The Vatican is planning to launch a new Web site this autumn, aimed at bringing together the faithful so they can interact, says Business Week magazine.

The publication in its May 8 issue reported that the Web site will include personal news updates, e-learning programs, and areas set aside for families, young people and parishes.

It quoted Sister Judith Zoebelein, the editorial director of the Internet office of the Holy See, saying: "People will be able to find each other and work together online, and then go back and use what they have learned or done in their own communities" [SOURCE].

Let’s hope that the new site fulfills its promise . . . and what it needs to be!

Well, That Went Well

While I was away on my trip, and thus out of touch with the news, a friend of mine told me that there were going to be massive shut-down attempt demonstrations on Cinco de Mayo (May 5th) and wanted to make sure that I knew about it in case it would affect my travel plans.

She later called back and said that the demonstrations were going to be on May 1st.

"That’s interesting," I thought.

If the demonstrations were on May 5th then that would make sense, as it’s a distinctive Mexican holiday, but if they’re on May 1st that says something else: It suggests that there may be radical leftist/Communist/socialist influence behind the demonstrations (whether most of the demonstrators know it or not), because May 1st is a traditional day for radical leftist/Communist/socialist demonstrations.

AND THAT’S WHAT’S HAPPENING HERE.

One of the organizing groups behind the May 1st demonstration is ANSWER.

I have to say that, for the purposes of the demonstrators, the May 1st events seem to have gone spectacularly badly. Not only did they seem not to pull the number of protestors the organizers were ~~hoping for~~boasting about in advance, but they also continued the turning off of the American people toward illegal immigrants.

Take the young lady pictured above. Notice anything about her?

Well, she’s scowling, of course, but that could just be because she’d outside and there’s a lot of bright light, so we won’t hold that against her. Notice anything else?

Oh, yeah! She’s got a Mexican flag wrapped around her face!

Now why do people hide their faces in public?

ACTUALLY, THERE CAN BE SEVERAL REASONS.

None of them, however, will win friends in the United States or make people want to pressure their politicians to vote amnesty for illegal aliens.

Then there are folks who are just silly. Like this guy:
I mean, what on earth is he thinking?

First of all, it simply isn’t true that no illegal aliens would mean no burritos. We had burritos in this country long before we had massive numbers of illegal aliens, and we’ll have them long afterwards as well. The last I knew, "burrito chef" was not one of the ficitonal "jobs Americans won’t do."

But even if it were . . . so what?

Living without burritos would be a small price to pay if it meant ending the illegal immigration problem and restoring respect for the law and sealing the nation’s borders to terrorists and stopping illegal aliens from depressing the wages of U.S. workers and taking jobs away from Americans who would do them if the labor market weren’t being undercut by people who are in this country illegally.

In fact, I’m living without burritos now (they’re terribly high-carb unless you make them with low-carb burrito wrappers, which I’m not motivated to do), so this guy gets absolutely no sympathy from me.

But this photo of him is just another sign of how asinine (that means "dull as a donkey"–or in Spanish a burro, or even a burrito) these demonstrations have been.

The demonstrators are really, really hurting the the pro-lawlessness cause.

AS HAS BEEN NOTICED BY SOME.

AND BY OTHERS.

AND EVEN BY SOME BISHOPS.

While I Was Gone . . .

The recent mystery photo I did reveals that I recently took a trip, though up to now I haven’t mentioned the purpose of the trip.

The purpose was so that I could go to Arkansas for the confirmation of one of my godsons, which as you can tell is what is going on in this picture.

I am presenting my godson Colin to Bishop James Sartain of Little Rock, who is confirming him.

Colin is an smart young man who shows a lot of promise. He takes his faith seriously, he’s got some great friends, and he’s got a lot of interests, including music and video games, as well as reading. In fact, he recommended a book to me that I’m going to get and read myself.

It was a real pleasure to get together with him and his family, and I extended my trip by an extra day so I could spend more time with them. It was a really special time for me.

I was also impressed with Bishop Sartain. He’s a Tennessee boy, and before the service I went up to him to make sure I was going to pronounce his name correctly during the service (that’s something that’s important to me, the way my last name gets mangled). Turns out his is pronounced SAR-tan, though he says he’ll answer to other things.

While I was waiting to ask him the question, he was telling some folks about a hunting trip he went on with friends down in Mississippi, so that scored him points in my book.

Incidentally, I have reason to think that this photo of us may show up in the diocesan newspaper, The Arkansas Catholic, so any blog readers who get the paper might keep an eye out for it.

Shelby Steele on White Guilt & Iraq

I have liked Shelby Steele ever since his book The Content of Our Character came out back in the nineties.

I had to pass on this excellent opinion piece by Steele, from today’s Wall Street Journal.

Anyone with even a casual interest in U.S. History will appreciate the insight that Steele draws from our military experiences since WWII.

His premise is that White Guilt causes us to wage war only at a level tolerable to our enemies. The subtitle of the piece asks the question "Why is America so delicate with the enemy?".

His exploration of the meaning of the term "white guilt" alone makes the article a worthy read.

Our enemies see our restraint as weakness and they are correct, in a sense. From our perspective, we may see it as self-imposed weakness that comes from strength. Our enemies don’t feel they have the luxury of moderating their war efforts. We apparently do.

I think many Iraq war critics fail to grasp what a tricky job it is to make war against a weaker and poorer nation, even if the job needs doing. The truth is that we could squash Iraq like a bug. We could carpet bomb their cities into oblivion and set up whatever kind of government we durn well pleased, but we don’t. If we had no scruples, we could easily make the insurgency impossible. We could pour three times the current number of troops into Iraq (as Colin Powell has suggested). The fact that we don’t is a topic worthy of serious investigation, and Steele does an admirable job.

Steele sees the same White Guilt induced paralysis throughout the West. He also sees it in our seeming inability to take any kind of intelligible position on immigration.

Not that White Guilt in itself doesn’t have its place. We should rightly feel shame at some of our national sins; slavery, wanton destruction of native populations, the headlong rush into hedonistic materialism following the industrial revolution. It was likely our own imperiaslism, exported to Japan, that came back to us in WWII.

We have laboriously overcome some of these national sins. We are yet paying penance for others, and some we are still actively engaged in (that would be the hedonism thing).

Clear sighted commentary like this, from Shelby Steele and others, helps us to put things into perspective and move on, completing our penance for past sins, and leaving us free to tackle our current ones.

Everyone should read this.

GET THE STORY.

What Are My Qualifications?

In the combox down yonder, a reader writes:

I stumbled onto your blog by accident. Read several areas of commentary. Was a bit befuddled as to why there is nothing on the site explaining why you are qualified to answer questions or give advice on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church and its practices and canon law rather than directing one to their local priest or bishop.

So I did a little research and found that you work for Catholic Answers.com, but that still doesn’t answer the question.

Okay! I’ll do what I can to help clarify matters!

Is your advice reviewed by Rome or your local bishop to make sure that it is correct and accurate.

No, there is not enough time for that.

Do you not have a moral obligation as a Catholic to gain prior approval of your commentary by you local bishop in order to make sure you are not misleading other Catholics in giving advice (including interpretation of Canon law) on what is proper and what is not?

I have a moral obligation to make sure that what I say is accurate, and I take that obligation very, very seriously. I would daresay that I take it much more seriously than many do, but I do not have the moral or canonical obligation to get prior approval on everything I write on matters related to the faith.

But I don’t have the moral obligation because to seek prior approval on what I write because if people had this obligation then the work of spreading and explaining the faith would come to a screeching halt. There are only 4,400 Catholic bishops in the world, but there are 6,000,000,000 people who need education in the faith. If bishops were required to pre-approve everything that was written to help evangelize the world then they would not be able to eat or sleep. They would spend all their time reading and pre-approving documents–either that or the number of documents would diminish to a trickle and the project of promoting the Christian faith would come to the screeching halt I mentioned earlier.

In recognition of the pressing need for works that promote the faith, canon law only requires imprimaturs on a handful of highly important works, like translations of Scripture or catechisms. It does not require imprimaturs (granted before or after publication) for ordinary attempts to explain points of Church teaching or law. (You can read the requirements for imprimaturs HERE).

As I said, though I don’t have the moral or canonical obligation to get pre-approval on everything I write (though I do on those things I write that require imprimaturs), I do have the moral obligation to make sure that I am right, and I am very serious about that.

This is one of the reasons I "show my work" by quoting from official Church documents whenever possible and by spelling out the links in my reasoning so that people can see and evaluate it for themselves. I don’t just present my conclusions and say "This is what the Church teaches." I know a lot of people do that, but I strive not to be one of them.

I also strive to make it clear whether what I’m saying is a matter of personal opinion or Church teaching–which is something else I wish others would do more often than is presently the case.

My goal in doing this work is what I call "transparency to the Church." I want to present to people what the Church presents without addition, subtraction, or alteration. I strive to tell people what the authentic Magisterium of the Church has said even when I’m not comfortable with it, and when I’m asked a question that the Magisterium has not addressed, I try to make it clear that the answer I’m giving is not to be confused with official Church teaching.

I’m not perfect, and I’m sure that people can point to examples where I have failed in this regard, but this is the goal that I earnestly pursue.

Given your commentary in posts on canon law, and your view of it, can you point me to a the reference that would allow for a dispensation to allow a priest to not be celibate and participate actively in a parish community life?

I’ve been working toward doing a post on the topic of how a laicized priest can and cannot involve himself in parish life for a while. I already know what the general parameters are, but I’m in the process of procuring a copy of the standard document that is issued to priests when they are laicized that spells these matters out. As soon as I have it and can get it typed in, I’ll post it so that people can see for themselves what the general rules are. (That way they don’t have to take me at my word; they can read the document for themselves.)

I hope to have this done later in the week, though it might stretch into next week. Please stop back by and check.

Would you say your a liberal or conservative Catholic? I can’t understand how people can consider themselves liberal and Catholic.

I don’t know whether you’re using the terms "liberal" and "conservative" in a political or a theological sense, though I suspect the latter. Theologically, I strive to be a scrupulously orthodox Catholic, which you might call conservative.

As for the bunny story, why do you bother to post this kind of trash? Shouldn’t your posts directed at furthering God’s word?

God made us to have a sense of humor and to spend time on things other than theology. He meant us to live full orbed lives and to be interested in many topics. I try to reflect this on my blog by using humor (like the ongoing "The Easter Bunny is EVIL!" joke) and by posting about topics other than religion so that we can marvel together about other aspects of God’s creation and the human spirit (which is part of his creation).

Interested in answers.

I hope these help!

One subject that you raised but didn’t put into the form of a question is my qualifications to do all this.

My academic training is in philosophy, which intersects to a considerable degree with the work I do. I am also an autodidact who has managed to acquire a background in apologetics, biblical studies, theology, liturgy, canon law, and related disciplines.

Because I have learned this material on my own, I do not have an institution such as the Church or a university that has put its seal of approval on me (in areas other than philosophy) and said, "Listen to this guy; he knows what he’s talking about."

In the absence of such a seal of approval, the only defense there is for my answers is making sure that they are right. I can’t rely for my credibility on the fact that someone else has vouched for me.

Since no institution has handed me a reputation for accuracy by putting its seal of approval on me, the only way I can build a reputation for accuracy is by regularly being accurate and showing why my answers are accurate. That’s another of the reasons I "show my work" by backing them up with Church documents and spelling out the reasoning behind the conclusions I offer so that people can evaluate them for themselves.

This means I go to more pains to make sure that I’m right than if I had an institutional seal of approval. If I were a priest, for example, I could often get along by just saying "This is the way it is," and many people wouldn’t challenge me (especially to my face) because I was a priest. Not being a priest, I don’t have that luxury, so I have to go to extra lengths to ensure accuracy since truth is the only defense I have.

Hope this helps, and hope you’ll keep reading!

Condoms & HIV/AIDS

I’ve gotten a bunch of e-mails about the stories circulating in the Catholic press that the Holy See may be issuing a document dealing with the topic of condoms and the transmission of HIV/AIDS.

From what I can tell, the known facts seem to be these:

1) Pope Benedict asked one of the Vatican dicasteries (the Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care) to prepare such a document (after some cardinals started making remarks in the press that sounded favorable toward using condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS, thus creating a public issue that needs clarification).

2) The document is presently in the consultation stage (word is that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is now looking at it).

3) When the consultation is finished, the document will be forwarded to B16 for him to decide what (if anything) to do with it. So NONE of this is a done deal at this point.

GET THE STORY.

Now, let’s go deeper: John Allen says (EXCERPTS),

Sources told NCR this week that a draft study currently being prepared by the Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care would provisionally accept the use of condoms in the narrow context of a married couple, where one partner is infected with HIV/AIDS and the other is not, as a means to prevent transmission of the disease.

Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragàn, President of the Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care, confirmed in an April 23 interview with the Roman newspaper La Repubblica that his office was asked by Pope Benedict XVI to look into the subject.

Speaking on background, an official in Lozano Barragàn’s office later told NCR that the draft takes a favorable position on the use of condoms to halt the spread of the disease "inside marriage and the family, not outside of it."

GET THAT STORY. (CLINICAL LANGUAGE WARNING)

Allen does a pretty good job explaining the moral dimensions of what the document might say, but let’s get into the moral issue involved and try to envision what the document might say if it comes out along the lines that Allen indicates are currently being discussed.

This matter is sensitive enough, though, that I’ll put the substantive discussion of it below the fold for the sake of decorum.

(CLINICAL LANGUAGE WARNING BELOW.)

Continue reading “Condoms & HIV/AIDS”