Pope's comments on condoms
This article caught my attention last week and I have been waiting eagerly to blog about it! Having grown up in a devout Catholic family and attended Catholic school for 12 years, I am very aware of Catholic views toward contraceptives. During high school sex education (called “human morality” class) contraceptives were never discussed. What’s the point of discussing contraceptives when one is not supposed to be having sex in the first place? The Church’s teachings were always presented in stark black and white terms. The use of contraceptives was “immoral” in all cases.
In his new book, Light of the World, Pope Benedict says that when used to control disease, condoms "can be a first step in the direction of moralisation, a first assumption of responsibility….a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality." Although Pope Benedict didn’t lift the Church’s ban on condoms, his statement acknowledged the existence of a gray area in what was once a nonnegotiable matter.
In Lost Intimacies: Rethinking Homosexuality under National Socialism, William Spurlin connects the Nazis’ racialization, gendering, and politicizing of the Holocaust to current governments’ (lack of) response to the AIDS pandemic. AIDS activists have accused governments of antigay and racial motivations (framing AIDS as simply a “gay” or “black” problem) for ignoring the crisis.
Activists have leveled the same criticisms against the Catholic Church. Because of the Church’s strong stance against homosexuality, many Church leaders have feared that taking proactive steps toward combating the spread AIDS would be considered an endorsement of (or a softening of the stance against) homosexuality. The Pope’s recent statement on condoms comes as the Vatican also addresses renewed criticism directed toward it’s inaction during the Holocaust. Does the Church want to avoid another such holocaust?
And what does the Pope mean by “moralizing” and finding “a more human (way) of living sexuality?” The Church is not new to “moralizing” sexuality, but how does one find a more “human” sexuality? The Pope mentions condom use as a “first assumption of responsibility.” Does a more “moral” more “human” sexuality mean a more responsible sexuality? I believe most AIDS activists and sex educators would not argue against an increased emphasis on “responsibility” in sexual practices.
While Church’s acknowledgement of the utility of condoms is a positive step toward combating AIDS, if the Church continues to define a moral sexuality solely by its own strict moral standards (and shaping its response according those who adhere to these strict morals), it turns it back on millions who die from a disease that could have easily been prevented.
And Happy Thanksgiving to you all!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteI want to expand on the concept oh “human sexuality” as it remains, I agree pretty ambiguous in the context. As Mac said, what does human sexuality means? I think that this comments on the use of condoms by the pope is interesting in itself, specially when considering that it is specifically in the specific circumstances of preventing the spread of diseases.
ReplyDeleteI am going make an overly stretched assumption here then about the possible meaning of human. The issue with condoms in the first place was that promoting safe sex was seen as an acceptance of promiscuity. Why using condoms if sexual interaction is primarily for reproduction? Moreover, reproduction happens, or should happen in monogamous relationships. It is made explicit that the use of condoms for uses other than disease prevention is unacceptable; however, the fact that they are accepted at all implies that the church has come to terms, if not accepted (will it ever?) that people live their sexuality though terms that do not wholly fulfill the church’s expectations. I am probably giving the pope a little bit too much credit here, but in my opinion this is what “human” stands for.
Going back to the question of homosexuality and AIDS, these regulated acceptance of condom use is not a step towards the acceptance of same-sex sexual desire but a step towards the acceptance of human sexuality in general, especially as experienced in the West. I am sure that, somewhere along the way, the pope crossed path with statistics that showed that, surprisingly, HIV/AIDS is not purely a homosexual disease. As the use of condoms in Western countries has become more widespread and the AIDS pandemic has spread to all societal groups, the church prolonged resistance to condoms is just an addition to the fact sheet of the Catholic Church obsolete believes. Maybe we are reading too much on this, maybe this is just a way of getting back some devotees by showing that they are adapting to contemporary life.