| The
following is the copy of a letter addressed to Vatican Officials
by Msgr. Ignacio Barreiro Carámbula, Director HLI-Rome,
May 2nd, 2006
Your
Excellency:
I am addressing Your Excellency on the question of the morality
of married couples using condoms in situations where one
member of a couple is infected with HIV/AIDS. I am bringing
this matter to your attention on the basis of credible journalistic
information, which states that a document is being studied
on this question. (Many articles can be quoted, perhaps
the most reliable is the one published in the section Vita
of L’Avvenire of Thursday April 27th, p. 3, under
the title “Barragan: Aids, non sarà la Chiesa
a promuovere il profilattico” that admits the probability
of issuance of a document on this matter.)
HIV/AIDS
is a death causing disease that can be transmitted through
sexual intercourse. So a person that engages in sexual intercourse
with his or her spouse, knowing that he is infected with
HIV/AIDS, becomes the cause of death of his spouse. It has
been proposed, that the Church consider permitting a married
couple, when one of the members is infected, to use condoms
to prevent the contagion of this disease as a morally permitted
lesser evil. It has been proposed, also by a significant
source, that the use of condoms in marriage “may be
seen as a form of self-defense.” The theory has also
been advanced that the prophylactic device could be considered
a form of therapy.
The
first objection against this proposal is based on the nature
of marriage. The use of condoms separates the unitive and
procreative aspects of marriage and can never be morally
licit. Evil can never be wished, desired, or committed to
prevent a worse evil. Here we do not have the case of an
evil that is tolerated or permitted, like tolerating a degree
of social evil that we are not in a position to combat,
but we are confronted by a case in which an evil is directly
desired and executed. So, we cannot apply the Principle
of Double Effect. To block the spread of the virus, the
couple poses an evil act that is willed with conscience
and knowledge, which breaks the two fundamental goods of
marriage. Neither can it be considered a form of self-defense
because we have an artificially construed case of aggression,
save the case that the infected spouse would try to have
intercourse by force, but if that risk exists, that would
justify a physical separation of the couple. Additionally,
the prophylactic device cannot be considered a therapy because
it does not heal any conditions, and there is a totally
safe alternative—abstinence. All these theories would
lead to a disintegrative vision of human sexuality. A vision
of sexuality that instead of being life giving is death
giving.
The
second objection is more serious because it risks the life
of the healthy member of the couple. It is in blatant contradiction
with the fifth commandment. Condom use by persons infected
by HIV/AIDS always exposes the healthy person to some risk
of infection and death as a consequence of full or partial
prophylactic failure or slippage that leads to the contagion
of a deadly disease. If condoms are so effective at preventing
HIV/AIDS transmission, why do nations that stress their
use continue to experience a rapidly escalating and explosive
HIV/AIDS epidemic? Condoms do not guarantee protection against
HIV/AIDS. Condoms may even be one of the main reasons for
the spread of HIV/AIDS as we will demonstrate below.
A reasonable
way of demonstrating the condom’s lack of effectiveness
in preventing the transmission of HIV/AIDS and sexually
transmitted diseases (STDs) is by comparing its limited
effectiveness in preventing pregnancy. Taking into account
that in many instances, condoms are not used in accordance
with the instructions, the failure rate can be from 10 to
14%. It should be obvious to any person that is not blind
to the limitations of wounded human nature, in particular
in moments of passion, that many times, condoms not going
to be used in accordance with the instructions. If pregnancy
happens in spite of the use of a condom, it is logical to
conclude that transmission of STDs would also occur. To
that, we have to add the obvious fact that pregnancy can
only happen during the limited five to eight days of women’s
fertility cycle, while HIV/AIDS can be transmitted at all
times during a fertility cycle.
Condom
integrity can be compromised and cause failure. Failure
mechanisms include: 1. Manufacturing defects. There is plenty
of evidence where batches of this product have been found
flawed, both in developed and developing countries. 2. Inadequate
handling during transportation or storage that leads to
the deterioration of this product. It is well known that
this product can be adversely affected by either extreme
heat or cold. 3. Diverse forms of imprudent or erroneous
handling by the consumer, like keeping the prophylactic
for a long period in a pocket. 4. Scientific literature
demonstrates a plurality of causes of accidental breakage.
Besides
the different manufacturing defects and accidents that hamper
its effectiveness, the prophylactic has a permanent structural
problem as a defence against HIV/AIDS because the viruses
of this disease are far smaller than the pores of the standard
latex condom. It is difficult to evaluate how many of those
viruses can pass through those pores taking into account
different factors like hydraulic tension of the walls of
the condom and the fact that many are associated with spermatozoids
that would not be able to pass through those pores. But
there is also scientific evidence of the free viruses that
are able to pass through those pores.
Besides
the risks inherent in every “protected action”
in which the condom is used, there is a cumulative risk
factor. Even if the risks were constant (and we know that
they are not because there are variants that change increasing
or decreasing these risks) the repetition of the conduct
increases the probability of infection. What has to be considered
therefore is not only the risk of infection from one act
of “protected” intercourse , but also the cumulative
risk from continuing “protected” acts of intercourse.
The risk of infection and death dramatically increases in
the medium or long term. One author, very reasonably claims
that from an “epidemiological” perspective,
an HIV/AIDS infected person having “protected”
sex seven times, negates any protection a condom might offer.
This means that safe sex becomes even more serious with
repeated condom use. A person that persists in playing Russian
Roulette will eventually kill himself, in the same way that
a person that persists in having sexual relations protected
by a condom with someone infected with HIV/AIDS.
Even
if the principle body fluids that can be a vehicle for the
HIV/AIDS contagion are directly connected with sexual activity,
other body fluids can transmit this disease. So, close physical
contact can be an occasion for the transmission of this
disease as there are many skin surfaces not covered by the
condom. Also we have to keep in mind that scientific literature
demonstrates that the external surfaces of the prophylactic
can be a cause of infection.
Last
but not least there is an important pastoral consideration
that should be taken into consideration to maintain the
current teaching of the Church, which is the scandal that
many persons of good faith are suffering at the publication
of the news of a possible change in the moral teachings
of the Church. This office has received numerous messages
expressing this concern, so it would be a very desirable
pastoral measure that the rumours on possible changes in
the moral teachings of the Church should be put to rest.
In
1930, the Anglican leaders used the same arguments for changing
the centuries-long Christian consensus on contraception.
They also said that married couples could use condoms “responsibly”
and for “proportionate reasons” and gave endorsement
to the very immoral forces that eventually brought us the
culture of death.
On
the basis of the arguments put forward in this brief presentation,
Human Life International is of the considerate view that
the teaching of the Church with regards to the use of condoms
should not be changed or qualified to permit its use by
a married couples in the case that one of the spouses is
HIV positive.
This
office will be glad to provide any additional information
that might be required.
Please
accept, Your Excellency, the expressions of my highest consideration,
In the Lord.
Msgr.
Ignacio Barreiro Carámbula
Director
HLI-Rome
|
