Use a condom and go to hell

It is unfortunate that the Catholic Church in the Philippines should take such an extreme position on condoms. First, so many Filipinos particularly those who can afford, already use it as needed and do not think they will go to hell for that. Condoms are openly sold in markets and drugstores and the question of sin does not stop them from buying it. Indeed it is as common as toothpaste.

The problem of the condom arises among the poor and ignorant. They cannot afford it nor are they educated enough to be aware of the connection between sex and the big families they breed but cannot afford. That is why the state has to step in, give the masses at least an equal chance at decision-making as their richer compatriots have. It means that they have to understand that sex comes into play in making decisions about how big a family they can afford to have. Any state birth control program is directed towards the masses, the collective whole of citizenry. Individually, citizens will then decide for themselves what to do and only then does it become a matter of conscience in which the church plays a role.

The Philippines has a burgeoning population of more than 87 million with one of the highest birth rates in Asia at 2.3 percent annually, according to the Asian Development Bank. We are at the bottom of the economic league but topping most countries in population. We are warned that if the birth rate is not reduced our population will double within the next 30 years. It is the business of the state to prepare and manage that future for the well-being of Filipinos all wanting to live decent lives.

Catholic friends tell me that some priests have told them that the use of birth control pills and condoms are a matter of individual conscience. So why is a bishop now condemning Congress for doing its job by appropriating 22 million US dollars to buy condoms and birth control pills? CBCP president Archbishop Angel Lagdameo says because these are against ‘nature and God’s law.’ I wonder if church people recognize the discrimination against the poor who are unable to have the same freedom of choice that the middle class and the rich have for artificial birth control.

But even more sensitive to the Church’s position on the use of condoms is how it has contributed to the spread of HIV aid. Its refusal to revisit a theological question effectively blinds it to the fatal disease that has killed and threatens to kill millions. There is a contradiction here between the Church’s teaching on the sacredness of life at anytime even before conception at the same time that it sacrifices millions of men and women already in the fullness of life by forbidding them to use life-saving condoms. When the late Pope John Paul vigorously opposed the use of condoms, he was not only against birth control. He also withheld consent even if it prevents the spread of HIV.

The doctrine holds that using condoms is wrong, even as a prophylactic against disease, because they prevent conception. If only God can terminate life then the church official by forbidding the use of condoms are themselves taking liberties on who must live or die. It has been lamented that to support this doctrine the Church has gone out of its way to refute the use of condoms as a means of HIV prevention. Senior Catholic clerics argued that not only were condoms theologically unsound, they spread false information that condoms were ineffective anyway.   According to this doctrine the use of a condom, even when employed to prevent the transmission of disease is a mortal sin, the highest grade of sin in the Catholic church. Therefore if a Catholic uses a condom aware of the church’s position, they have to confess their sin and do penance because by doing so they put themselves outside the saving grace of the church. In other words, use a condom and go to hell.

But there are Church people who are taking a more independent line. For example, the South African Catholic Bishops Conference issued a statement on HIV supporting the use of condoms by discordant couples. The liberal Cardinal Godfried Danneels, archbishop of Brussels and Mechelen holds a similar position. He said that if a person is HIV-positive and wishes to continue to be sexually active, they should use condoms to avoid infecting others or risk breaking the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”. Speaking at a UNAIDS press conference in London prior to the 2004 International AIDS Conference, Dr Peter Piot, head of UNAIDS and himself a Catholic, provided an example of such pragmatism. He described meeting Catholic nuns in southern Africa who were distributing condoms to women. When Dr Piot asked them how they could distribute condoms in defiance of official Vatican teaching, one of the nuns replied “Rome is a long way away”. That, too, is the answer from most Filipinos who have to face the stark reality of sex and disease.

That thinking is widespread in Europe. The late Cardinal Basil Hume of England stood by his assistant bishop of East London, Victor Guazzelli when he said “it seems to me that if people are set on intercourse they at least have an obligation of not passing on disease and death, even if the only possible means to them is the use of a condom. This seems to me common sense.” The church in the Philippines should take the cue from the pragmatism of the Church in western societies about the use of contraception. Few Catholics in the West would ever confess artificial birth control and even fewer priests would impose a penance for the use of the contraceptive pill. About 75% of married Catholics in richer countries use the contraceptive pill, and Italy has the lowest birthrate in the European Union.

*    *    *

My email [email protected] has been criminally hacked, therefore I have discontinued using it. Any messages purporting to come from me should be disregarded. The hackers are raiding my directory and sending messages for their own purposes.