The Church is opposed to condoms in all cases, even in Africa when it can help with the AIDS pandemic

      It   is said the Church is outdated, old-fashion, or stuck-in-our-ways.  What isn’t considered is the following analogy.  A man learns a few months into his new job that he will get fired if he is late one more time; so he shows up early every day.  He’s been working his job for 20 years now, and all though he probably won’t get fired if he shows up late, he tends to show up on time, if not early because it is 1) the right thing to do 2) good for the company  3) part of his job description.  In other words, it is 1) morally correct 2) of benefit for the community 3) his duty that comes with his liberties (liberty here being able to work at a job he likes, he can quit whenever, but he doesn’t because he likes his job).  Is this man stuck in his ways?  Is he old-fashioned?  Is he outdated?  I would hope that truths like the 3 listed above are not something that can fall in and out of truth or relevance.  Debated, sure.  But never dropped.  Could you imagine a society where there was no moral good (ie.  Killing people is cool), no one cared for or worked with their neighbor (ie. Everyone lived alone in shacks in the woods), and no one had any responsibilities with their rights (ie. make a kid and hope they can survive without your help).  That would be a mad house and tear itself apart within 1 generation.  The Church, over the past 2000 years, has spent some of its time uncovering and defining these God-made, natural truths that permeate all of humanity and civilization. 
So now, when someone, or something, goes against these truths, it is the Church’s duty to investigate their claims, take them under consideration, and then make a decision on whether this is one of God’s natural laws.  But if the same claim gets made again and again with no new evidence, should the Church have to arrive at the same answer again and again?  Do you really think contraception is a new thing?  Sure, back in the day it was unreliable but the morality behind it isn’t affected by its efficiency. (In fact, one could even make the claim that condoms do a GOOD job of a BAD thing) The Church has seen this before and has lent an ear to the cries from the 60’s, but has since made a decision.

So back in 1968, just 3 years after the close of Vatican II, Pope Paul VI wrote an encyclical (a papal letter to all bishops) called Humanae Vitae (translates to Human Life, go figure) in response to questions about a “new Church stance on modern issues” (such as birth control) a result of people contorting what Vatican II said to what they wanted it to.  The following is an excerpt from that encyclical, paragraph 17.  Be mindful as you read, this was written in 1968 (when the divorce rate was only 30%) and to the whole world (not just America). 

“Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.”

Back in 1968, the Pope (a tired, old man who has “no place worrying about what goes on in your bedroom”) predicted a loosening of societal morals, and increase in infidelity, the objectification (to make less than human; only a tool or item to be possessed) of women, and the state-imposed contraception (including but not limited to: condoms, the pill, sterilization as seen in some other countries, and abortion).  And empirical data over the past 40 years has only vindicated his prediction.  Uncanny how some old man way over in Rome could so accurately describe what would happen in America over the next century if contraception became a social norm.  If people could predict the economy with this sort of accuracy, they’d be put in charge.  But people have biases against the Church.  I digress. This accuracy comes from the Church thinking long and hard on this matter, praying about it, and coming to a decision on what is truth, and sticking to it until sufficient cause is brought against it, but even then, the old truth isn’t just dropped.

This is because a truth cannot become untrue, for then it was never true to begin with.  But if sufficient cause is brought against a known truth, don’t lose the old truth, but rather try to properly understand the old truth to accept this new data.  You don’t drop Newton’s laws of gravity simply because it doesn’t work in the atomic or cosmic scales.  There is just more to gravity than is defined by Newton’s law.  Newton’s laws, therefore, aren’t wrong, but rather a simplification (due to its specific use in the normal realm of human experience) of a much grander law that we don’t understand…yet.  The excerpt I provided is just a taste.  Pope Paul VI provides his reasoning for his claims in his encyclical, so if you wish to read that, feel free.  If you want a better explanation without reading it, I’m sorry, but that is like asking an Electrical Engineer to explain how a Synchronous 3-phase Generator works.  I could tell you what it does, and technically how it does it, but you will only understand the what, and not the how nor how I got to the what.  But to attempt a short summary of the logic (I remind you again, unless you read the whole document, my argument will seem lacking, and that’s only because it is), I provide the following:  A married couple (not discussing what that entails this time round) has sex with two resulting effects.  The unification of the two souls (two become one) and procreation.  To deny either of those effects is to go against natural law.  We must be open to both.  Condoms and other birth control deny the second effect, ergo, against the natural law.  But Dan, does that mean a barren women shouldn’t have sex, for she cannot procreate?  No, for as seen in Scripture both elderly women and women considered barren are graced with children, so naturally, this could still be an effect.  Just as not all sex has to result in a child, it just must be open to it.

In reference to the African AIDS situation, I will explain the church’s view in an analogy.  If you concede that in normal conditions, birth control is morally, socially (for the good of a society), and personally wrong, then you can call it normally evil.  But Dan, the Church allows killing in self-defense if there is NO OTHER option.  That is an extreme case; is not Africa’s plea similar, an extreme? Valid, but the key there is NO OTHER option.  African’s have another option.  It’s called self-discipline. Let me illuminate my claim with 2 analogies: Chickenpox and fitness.

 Chickenpox.  If you've ever had a chickenpox, you could tell me if it is a good or bad idea to itch the bumps.  The answer is bad.  The absolute best thing you can do for chickenpox is let it sit.  There is no known cure for the chickenpox.  All treatment is aimed at treating symptoms, not the disease. All things that supposedly are treatments to the disease take a similar amount of time to take effect and tend to give you awful side-effects.  Even if you get over it in a week, you are permanently predisposed to have shingles so it has long lasting effects as well.  The worst part of chickenpox, however, is that you must not only wait it out, but you also shouldn’t scratch.  Scratching, if deep enough, can cause scarring.   It also opens up the rash to be more easily infected, which could lead to deeper health issues.  This is why you see little kids with oven mitts taped to their hands by their mothers, so they don’t scratch, for the young’s will is weak, as stated above in Humanae Vitae.

Dan, what does chickenpox have to do with AIDS in Africa?  Well, if you haven’t picked up on where this analogy is going yet, let me try and illustrate. AIDS is like an annoying rash: easy to transfer (most common from contact, but there are other ways), predisposes you to later health issues, no known cure, just treatment of symptoms.  The major differences are the contact must be sexual and AIDS is more deadly.  The idea behind condoms is the mother putting mittens on her child to keep the young one from causing lasting damage when he gives into the urge to scratch (giving into the urge for extra-marital sex).  Seems like a good enough idea, right.  Well if you conceded earlier that condoms, in the normal, are wrong, than I have a sad truth for you. One the church figured out a long time ago; you’ve probably heard it.  The ends NEVER justify the means. (I know only Siths deal in absolutes, but I mean, thats just a book/movie) Just because hitting the annoying kid in your class (bad) would shut him up and stop him from annoying you (good), doesn’t mean hitting him is a good thing to do.  And you conceded the means (birth control) is not good, therefore, no matter the end, it isn’t good.  Note: if you didn’t concede birth control as normally wrong (case made in first half of post), then there is no point in haggling over Africa because it is dependent on whether birth control is normally wrong, good, or neutral.

But what kind of person would I be if I just shot down others ideas without providing a suitable substitute.  Here is what the Church proposes, one of the OTHER options.  The same thing the Church expects for you!  How just that the Church treats their lives just as important as yours. The church just asks that you keep it in your pants till you’re married.  Don’t "scratch" until you are married. If you don’t scratch, you don’t need the mittens (condoms). How does that solve the problem?  Well, only those married couples where one or two members of the couple has/have AIDS will have the disease.  Couples without it will have AIDS free lives and children (assuming they still don’t have an extra-marital affair). Any extra-marital sexual contact will only potentially spread the disease to those still unaffected. The fact that AIDS spreads to the offspring of those affected is true whether or not condoms are used, so that point is null and void. If anything, condoms instill a false sense of invincibility that leads to unknowingly spreading the disease.  They should also refrain from the archaic and anti-science view that sex with virgins will rid you of AIDS.  10 bucks says an infected guy came up with that one. But shouldn’t the couples who have AIDS not have kids, so they don’t pass on the disease to the next generation?  Probably, but that’s up to the parents to decide.  If that is what they wish, then they can just not have sex.  Dan, you asking all these people to avoid sex is unreasonable and impractical. People will have extra-marital relations, that’s just a fact of life.  Is it?  Is that what fitness trainers tell the obese child who wants to lose weight?  “Sorry boy, but you are always going to overeat and not exercise, that’s just a fact of life”  No!  Why should we apply this self-discipline to our physical health, but not our sexual health.  That’s a double standard.  If you want to put physical health on the same scale of the proposed sexual health, the following needs to be true: greater availability of diet pills and other diuretics for the young and the poor, free shots of insulin in all school vending machines, more affordable access to Lap-band Surgery and Liposuction, Sensitivity training about the positive contributions of eating disorders, and give people the option to execute unwanted obese children.  These just seem absurd, and yet, when you look at the equivalent for sexual health, it’s what people/the government is providing/demanding of us.  Riddle me that.