This is a situation that is obviously extra-marital and already immoral — and likely homosexual as well, in which using a condom obviously wouldn’t be dissociating the unitive and procreative dimensions of the sexual act. Presuming that the prostitute wouldn’t give up his behavior, the question becomes one of prudence, trying to eliminate the possible damage of the man’s immoral act and inch him toward conversion and genuine concern for himself and others. Pope Benedict suggests that the use of a condom might be a “first step in the direction of a moralization” with the prostitute’s preoccupation with receiving or passing on diseases to his clients. It wouldn’t make moral his immoral act of prostitution, but this “assumption of responsibility” might be the beginning of a “humanization” of his interpersonal behavior that could eventually lead to his deciding to refrain from it altogether.
Pope Benedict in his response also states that, while in an individual case the use of a condom in an immoral circumstance may open someone up toward moral progress, at the general level, the promotion of condoms is “not a real or moral solution” to the problem of AIDS. Dr. Edward Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Center at the Harvard Center for Population and Development,” has repeatedly affirmed, against the Pope’s critics on the issue of condoms and AIDS, that there is no evidence that the promotion and ubiquitous availability of condoms have decreased HIV infection rates in Africa. Multiple studies have shown that the only programs that have been successful have encouraged the reduction of the number of sexual partners, and the promotion of condoms generally has led to the opposite result, a promiscuous expansion of the number of sexual partners. This is why many non-ideological AIDS experts in Africa are now promoting the ABC plan to which the Pope alluded, focusing on abstinence before marriage, monogamous fidelity within marriage, and condom use only when people have determined to be reckless, in order to lessen the consequences of that reckless behavior.
The Pope doesn’t specifically address the often-asked question of whether it would be moral for a married couple to use a condom to engage in sexual activity when one of the spouses has AIDS. The answer, however, should be obvious: it is absolutely incompatible with love and “making love” for one with AIDS to risk passing on a fatal disease to a loved one by engaging in sexual activity with or without a condom (since the condom may fail). In the tragic and not uncommon context of marital rape in Africa, when husbands with AIDS insist on their supposed “marital rights” to sexual activity with their uninfected wife, the wife’s insistence on her husband’s using a condom while he forces himself upon her would not be sinful on her part, since we would not be dealing with a true conjugal act.
The solution to the problem of AIDS transmission, the Pope said, lies ultimately in remedying the “banalization of sexuality” with its “humanization.” This is what the Church’s teaching on sexual morality has always sought to emphasize.
Last night, the nation witnessed what looked a lot like an extended version of the famous “two minutes hate” from George Orwell’s novel 1984. During a CNN town hall on gun control, a furious crowd of Americans jeered at two conservatives, Marco Rubio and Dana Loesch, who stood in defense of the Second ... Read More
First it was the Holocaust, now Parkland — is there any act of depravity to which the less respectable right-wing media cannot imagine a connection for George Soros? David Clarke, the sheriff of Fox News, insisted that the Florida students’ reaction to the shooting “has GEORGE SOROS’ FINGERPRINTS all ... Read More
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has indicted 13 Russian nationals for allegedly conspiring to sow confusion in the 2016 presidential election. The chance of extraditing any of the accused from Vladimir Putin’s Russia is zero. Some of the Russians’ Keystone Cops efforts to disrupt the election favored Donald ... Read More
Arguments about guns tend to suffer from two distinct problems. The first — and most obvious — is they quickly get screechy. The arguments devolve into shouting matches and temper tantrums. The goal isn’t to persuade but to mock and bully, as if stigma alone can decisively shift the public debate. The ... Read More
The New York Times is uniquely bad on the subject of firearms. There are two ways to understand that sentence, and both apply: Among major news publications, the Times regularly exhibits an unparalleled level of illiteracy on the subject of firearms, and it exhibits comparable illiteracy on practically no other ... Read More
SPOILERS AHEAD Black Panther is a really good movie that lives up to the hype in just about every way. Surely someone at Marvel Studios had an early doubt, reading the script and thinking: “Wait, we’re going to have hundreds of African warriors in brightly colored tribal garb, using ancient weapons, ... Read More
In his Lawfare critique of one of my several columns about the purported obstruction case against President Trump, Gabriel Schoenfeld loses me — as I suspect he will lose others — when he says of himself, “I do not think I am Trump-deranged.” Gabe graciously expresses fondness for me, and the feeling is ... Read More
Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More
To understand the American gun-control debate, you have to understand the fundamentally different starting positions of the two sides. Among conservatives, there is the broad belief that the right to own a weapon for self-defense is every bit as inherent and unalienable as the right to speak freely or practice ... Read More