A number of questions have arisen in the media following comments made by Mgr Mario Grech Bishop of Gozo during Mass commemorating the day dedicated to persons with disability. Malta Today gave the comments front page coverage in its mid-week edition (December 5) and produced an in-depth story on Sunday December 9. Other papers gave it more discreet news coverage. Ranier Fsadni dedicated his weekly piece in The Times to it on December 6. There were other comments as well.
What the bishop said
But what did Bishop Grech say exactly? The release sent by the Press Office of the Curia had one general heading: the Church is pro-life; and three sub-headings: bio-ethics; AIDS; persons with disability.
Only his comments on AIDS were commented on.
The comments sent by the Press Office are very clearly a summary of what Bishop Grech said. I got the impression that it is not the best of summaries. For fairness sake, I will produce (cut and paste from the statement I was given by a newspaper) the comments in toto and in Maltese to prevent any misrepresentation that can result from a translation.
"Quddiem il-marda ta l-AIDS, huwa dmir jaghfas fuq spallejna bhala Knisja biex naghtu sehemna lis-socjeta halli tghix il-hajja fil-milja taghha. Nerga nistaqsi: huwa gust li l-posizjoni Kattolika li zzomm li l-condom mhux is-soluzjoni tigi meqjusa bhala "tabu"? Huwa fatt li l-proposta tal-Knisja qed tinteressa lil hafna ghax qed jindunaw li t-tezi favur il-condom fiha hafna qerq li jista jigi ppruvat b'argument xjentifici u mhux biss etici. Hadd ma jista jghid li l-uzu tal-preservativ huwa garanzija ta "safe sex". F'dan il-kamp il-proposta tal-Knisja hija li jkun hemm edukazzjoni ghal astinenza barra miz-zwieg, fedelta bejn il-koppja mizzewga u aktar rispett lejn il-morali bl-imgieba taghna. Il-bniedem ma jistax jirrimedja ghall-imgieba mmorali tieghu billi juza mezzi immorali. Meta l-awtoritajiet jippromovu t-tqassim tal-condom bhala mezz kontra l-AIDS/HIV, dan jtista jigi nterpretat bhala approvazzjoni ta imgieba u stili ta hajja li huma responsabli ghal din l-epidemja."
To condom or not to condom
The speech of Bishop Grech against the position that condom use is the solution for the AIDS epidemic is correct. (I purposely put "the" in bold as the Bishop referred to "is-soluzzjoni". A correct translation would be "the solution" and not "a solution" as some mistakenly put it.) It is not right to reduce the whole debate about this epidemic with its societal, moral and pubic health policy ramifications to the use or non use of the condom. One finds that like many other issues the AIDS epidemic lends itself neither to an easy analysis not to an easy solution.
Bishop Grech is also correct in stating that the church's position - education for sexual abstinence outside marriage, faithfulness between couples and more moral behaviour - is a more holistic (and consequently better) approach. Just throwing condoms at the problem would not solve it. Taking away cobwebs is a temporary solution if the spider is still around. Bishop Grech is proposing ways of eliminating the spider.
Health authorities should be clear in their campaigns so that no one interprets their message as meaning: "use the condom and do whatever you want". Healthy sexual relations and fidelity in marriage are an attitude that helps the common good. Health authorities should make such messages an integral part of their campaigns and educational programmes. I did not study the campaign being waged by the Maltese health authorities; but TV adverts proposed fidelity as the first option. Thus a context is given. The spots I saw cannot be described as mere condom propaganda.
One cannot emphasise this attitude enough. It is not dignified to assume that fidelity is an unattainable way of life. It is not dignified to assume that promiscuity is the only feasible option. It is the worst option. We should not move in the drift of the way of least resistance as if it is the best way.
One should also be realistic. It is also clear that in the real world irresponsible people abuse and keep on abusing. In pluralistic and promiscuous environments one can understand the reason why health authorities do feel obliged and morally justified to propose the condom as a means that can reduce and contain risks concomitant to a promiscuous attitude towards sexual relations. It should be made clear that condom use does not totally eliminate them.
An analogy is perhaps in place. Giving out needles to drug users is not and cannot be in any way portrayed as the solution to the drug problem. But giving out needles can reduce the risk of adding Aids to the plague of drugs.
To con or not to con
Ranier Fsadni's column in The Times is one of the very few columns I read regularly. It is a studied and balanced column. My understanding is that it also takes the Catholic position on different subjects very seriously. I think that those who like me regularly follow Ranier would like an answer to his comments suggesting that there is no deceit from those on the condom side when they say that it is pretty safe. Ranier also mentioned a BBC programmes which stated that Cardinal Trujillo mistakenly used a number of references that imply (the way they were used) that condoms are not safe.
Can someone enlighten us? Is it or is it not a con campaign?
Martini (not) on the rocks
Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini could have become the Rock. But it was not to be like that. His past and his present still give him the stature of a giant.
Last year L'espresso magazine carried a fascinating exchange between Dr. Ignazio Marino, an Italian transplant surgeon at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia, Penn., and Cardinal Martini.
What follows is the report filed on April 21, 2006 by J L Allen Jr. of the National Catholic Reporter. One can retrieve the report from http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word042106.htm
"Asked about the use of condoms to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS, Martini responded: "Certainly the use of prophylactics can, in some situations, constitute a lesser evil," mentioning the case of a couple where one partner is infected and the other isn't.
The problem, Martini said, isn't really the ethical analysis. The problem is the PR headaches that follow whenever a church official says this out loud. To put it bluntly, anytime a senior church official says that use of a condom might be a "lesser evil" in the context of a deadly disease, the next day's headlines trumpet "Church okay with condoms," which is not the same message.
"The question is really if it's wise for religious authorities to propagandize in favour of this method of defence [from HIV/AIDS], almost implying that other morally sustainable means, including abstinence, are put on a lower level," Martini said. "The principle of a 'lesser evil,' applicable in all the cases covered by ethical doctrine, is one thing; another thing is who ought to express these judgments publicly."
A postscript
Bishop Grech, in his homily, also referred to the attitude present among us that discriminates against Catholics just because they are Catholics. His reference to a concrete case is quite in place. It is not the only one. I will return to this argument in the near future.