William E. May
The July 10th issue of The Tablet featured an essay, ÒThe truth about condomsÓ by the noted moral philosopher Martin Rhonheimer. In it Rhonheimer, a moral philosopher/theologian for whom I have the greatest respect, argued that it is morally permissible for a married couple to use condoms in order to prevent the transmission of HIV and that such use of condoms would not be contraceptive. The contraceptive effect would be praeter intentionem and this contraceptive side-effect would be justified by the principle of double effect.
Rhonheimer is not the first Catholic moral philosopher/theologian to point out that using condoms to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS is not necessarily contraceptive. The contraceptive effect could indeed be Òpraeter intentionem.Ó Several theologians in the 80Õs, among them Norman Ford, argued in similar fashion that use of condoms to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS is not of itself contraceptive, because the moral object of the act is not to contracept but to avoid transmitting a disease. The couple might even be infertile, and hence it would make no sense for them to contracept. I agreed in the 80Õs with these theologian/philosophers that use of condoms in such circumstances did not necessarily involve a contraceptive intent. For instance, I am now 76 years old and my wife is 72. If, for instance, I were to become infected with HIV through a blood transfusion, and if I were to use a condom in having sex with my wife, I would surely not be using it to impede procreation, i.e., to contracept, for the choice to use the condom would in no way be a choice to impede procreation (see Humanae vitae,14).
Nonetheless, as I argued in a brief essay published in the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Newsletter, vol. 11, no. 3 (June 1988), pages 1-2, it would, as I said in that essay, Òbe morally wrong to use condoms in this way. Using them would not violate some of the conditions of the principle of double effectÉbut it would violate the first condition of this principle, which requires that the act chosen, prescinding from its evil effect, must either be morally good or at least morally indifferent. But condomistic intercourse is not morally good in itself, nor is it morally indifferent.Ó
Such intercourse,
I went on to say, is Òan ÔunnaturalÕ or perverted sexual act, and cannot be
regarded as a true act of marriage.Ó The moral object here is Òto have
condomistic intercourse,Ó and this is a morally bad object specifying the act.
ÒThe Catholic tradition,Ó I noted in my 1988 essay, Òrepudiated condomistic
intercourse not only because it was usually chosen as a way of contracepting
but also because it was Ôagainst natureÕ. Older theologians judged that in such
intercourse the maleÕs semen was deposited in a vas indebitum or Ôundue vessel.Õ Although this language is not in
favor today [and it may reflect an understanding of natural law I do not share]
the judgment embodied in it, I am convinced, is true. When spouses choose to
use condoms they change the act they perform from one of true marital union
(the marriage act) into a different kind of act. The Ôlanguage of the bodyÕ [to
use Pope John Paul IIÕs way of speaking] is changed. In the marital act their
bodies speak the language of a mutual giving and receiving, the language of an
unreserved and oblative gift. Condomistic intercourse does not speak this
language; it mutilates the language of the body, and the act chosen is more
similar to masturbation than it is to the true marital act.Ó
Such was the argument
I gave in the late 80Õs. Today I would add some of the following
considerations. Such a condomistic act would not, I believe, ÒconsummateÓ the
marriage. According to the 1983 revised Code of Canon Law, marriage is not consummated by any kind of sexual act. According to the new Code
a valid marriage between baptized persons
is Òconsummated if the spouses have in a human manner (humano modo) engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for
the generation of offspringÓ (canon 1061, par. 1).
Moreover, in his masterful October 29, 1951 ÒAddress to the Italian Union of Midwives,Ó Pius XII gave us a very specific ÒruleÓ for the intentional exercise of our generative powers. He wrote as follows: ÒThis, therefore, is the rule to be followed: the use of the natural, generative instinct and function is lawful in the married state only, and in the service of the purposes for which marriage existsÓ [i.e., the procreative and unitive purposes] (no. 60). Condomistic sex is not unitive. In and through it husband and wife do not become Òone flesh.Ó Husbands and wives have the right to engage in the conjugal or marital act, one not intentionally ÒclosedÓ to either the unitive or procreative goods of marriage. They have no right to condomistically facilitated sexual activity, which is intentionally closed to the unitive, one-flesh good of marriage. Condoms do not make them one flesh.
In addition, it is stupid for married couples to behave in this way because condoms in no way offer Òsafe sexÓ but only Òless unsafe sexÓ and cannot be trusted to prevent a disease. We should put our trust in God and in the Church, not in condoms.
When I wrote my
essay in 1988 I consulted several theologians loyal to the magisgerium. Some
priest-theologians, because of misplaced ÒcompassionÓ I believe, thought that
such use of condoms would be acceptable. I think Rhonheimer belongs here.
However, ever married
Catholic theologians loyal to the magisterium whom I consulted
unaninimously and immediately judged such behavior unworthy of marriage, and
their spouses were in perfect agreement.
William E. May
Michael J. McGivney Professor of Moral Theology
John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the
Family at
The Catholic University of America
May is married, the father of seven children and grandfather
of 12 with one more, thanks to God, on the way.