OK. Where angels fear to tread, and always attempting to seek reason and clarity in the midst of every argument, as a certified catechist in the Archdiocese, and in training to be a catechetical leader, I certainly am no expert on Humanae Vitae, Theology of the Body, or the biology/pathology of HIV/AIDS. Is that enough of a disclaimer, or does that convince you of the uselessness of reading any further.
Please do not crucify me for this vain attempt at clarification. A debate amongst friends prompting my amateurish attempt at it. I am, however, by general inclination, the devil’s advocate, much to the woe and chagrin of those who know, and yes, perhaps even love me. Had I found as simple or certainly simpler explanation online as I am attempting here from a certainly more authoritative source, I would have immediately referred you to it and saved myself the time and trouble. However, I am still seeking such a resource.
This question is one of those many Catholic answers which do not lend themselves to sound bites. Most Catholic answers do not lend themselves to sound bites. The modern world operates on sound bites and cannot tolerate any explanation longer than fifteen seconds with lots of pictures, music, and fun, pleasing imagery. If the Church is guilty of anything, it is guilty of brilliant theology, and lousy reduction of that brilliant theology into sound bites, as if that were even possible. Hence, the joie de catechesis. Seriously, can you think of a more thrilling challenge in the 21st century? I can’t. Hence, here I am, amateur though I may be.
This particular instance regarding the pope’s latest comments in Africa, in my amateur opinion, is one of those many exquisite and regular moments. It really does depend on what your definition of “is” is, and understanding the milieu of either side to understand how either side could sincerely be saying what they are saying, and not merely being ideological. Please let me attempt to explain.
Being an amateur student of the Theology of the Body and having trained myself using Ascencion Press’ “Theology of the Body for Teens”, and having some experience in amateur reduction of brilliant theology into teen speak, I sally forth to my own destruction below.
Let us begin with the facts, the simplest first. Always a solid and reasonable place to begin in debate. AIDS is a horrific, terrible disease of which I know nothing. Deo Gratias. Secular and Catholic thought wants to prevent AIDS. Laudable and understandable and commendable. Agreed. See that wasn’t so bad. We can agree. Secular thought assumes human beings are devoid of the ability to control themselves and that that is even a laughable suggestion; therefore, the next best suggestion is some mechanical device which allows the sexual act, but may prevent the spread of the disease. I get it.
Catholic thought has such a radically different approach to sexual union than the secular world. For the secular world, sexual gratification is utilitarian. The individual gets something for themselves out of it. Catholic thought sees the sexual union as giving of oneself to the other. It is not intended at all or whatsoever for self-gratification, that is a side benefit, although the joy of the moment is God’s gift, too.
Catholic thought is so poetic in terms of this mutual self-giving, and ultimate union of God and mankind, in a very theological and beautiful, and not scatological way, it is difficult for most people, if not all, to wrap their minds around these ideas, and they only begin to illuminate in the depths of reflection and contemplation on the Theology of the Body. Children are the fruit of this union. The union is so sacred and so reflective of the Divine union, that placing anything that might interrupt or impede this union between two persons of the opposite sex expressing sincere love for one another is anathema, hence the Church’s opposition to same sex unions, contraception, or perversion of any kind. Notice, please, I did not say Catholics always live this ideal consistently, sinners that we are, but this is the ideal.
Besides the theological objections, the Holy Father would appear to have had in mind, forgive my boldness in assuming I know his intentions, the practical reality that the great majority of human beings over-simplify, and if offered a false panacea such as a condom and infected with HIV/AIDS, and lacking, potentially, the love and concern of the other, as Catholic thought would require, the infected person because they believe a condom is a rock solid preventative may resume sexual activity indiscriminately, as if they were not infected with HIV/AIDS. Catholic thought would call to that individual to consider morally and conscientiously the implications of their continuing sexual activity and exercise love of the other manifested in self control, with the aid of grace. What if it breaks?
It is these considerations which I understand led the Holy Father to suggest condoms may not be the ultimate preventative against the spread of HIV/AIDS, but rather, may lead to more infection than abstinence. Did that make any sense? I would really appreciate a professional Catholic moral theologian correcting my many mistakes I know are extant from my ignorance.
In Christian love,