Morality and practicality

Morality and practicality


Posted 10:49pm (Mla time) Jan 31, 2005
By Rina Jimenez-David
Inquirer News Service



Editor's Note: Published on page A13 of the February 01, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.


RADIO showbiz commentator "Tita" Swarding put his opposition to condoms succinctly: "I don't approve of condoms because they take the pleasure out of sex!" To which I had to retort, "There's no pleasure to be had when you're already dead!"

Last Thursday's "Debate" (actually, it aired very early in the morning of Friday) on GMA Network was supposed to focus on the implications of Health Secretary Manuel Dayrit's declaration that the Department of Health was not keen on promoting condoms as one of the methods of family planning. Which is strange, come to think of it, since condoms have long been part of the "menu" of safe, effective and legal methods of contraception that the government has been promoting for decades. Condoms are perhaps the oldest contraceptive method. Trust Condoms' Benny Llapitan recounted that the first condoms were developed soon after the Crusades when the crusaders started bringing home sexually transmitted infections along with tales of heroism. What's more, condom use is the only family planning method that also provides protection against most sexually transmitted infections. So where did Dayrit's sudden and unfounded hostility to condoms spring from?

Unfortunately, the question put to the viewing public and to the panelists focused not on Dayrit's stated policy, but on the "morality" of condom use. And that's where the discussion immediately bogged down. For when such a personal and subjective matter as "morality" is dragged into the discussion, there can be no meeting of minds, since standards on what is "moral" or "immoral" are bound to vary widely.

* * *

ACTUALLY, I wanted to refute "Tita" Swarding's assertion about the loss of sensation when using a condom since experts claim the latex used in condoms sold these days is so thin it should not interfere with the user's pleasure. But then, who was I to say so, being a woman? I waited for my co-panelists, Bukidnon Rep. Neric Acosta and comedian Gary Lising, to speak up, but they chose the better part of discretion.

Those on the other side, who contended that condom use is immoral, stuck by their premise that the only real form of protection against unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections is abstinence. A student leader declared that if young people would only wait until after they reach adulthood and are married before they have sex, then they would have nothing to be afraid of. Manila Rep. Miles Roces added that married couples need only to stay faithful to each other to protect each other against the same risks.

There's nothing new or revolutionary in this, really. If you would recall, our own parents sought to fill our heads with dire warnings about “disgrasyadas” [disgraced women] and the dangers of syphilis and gonorrhea (they had not known about HIV/AIDS yet), as did their parents, too, I bet. I have nothing against these messages and warnings, and have doubtless said much the same thing to my own children. But much as we parents of today would wish to live in denial about our children's sexuality, the dire reality is that more and more young Filipinos are engaging in sex today, and thus putting themselves at growing risk of early and unwanted pregnancy as well as coming down with an STI, including HIV/AIDS.

* * *

NEITHER is the debate confined to the Philippines, or to Filipino Catholics, alone. The other week, Pope John Paul II was moved to reaffirm Church teaching urging abstinence and marital fidelity as the only way to halt the spread of HIV/AIDS. The Vatican's declaration came in the wake of a statement made by a Spanish bishop that there was "a place" for condoms in AIDS prevention, though this Church official was later overruled by the full bishops conference.

This hasn't fully stopped other bishops, though, from speaking their minds on the issue. Two cardinals in Europe, for instance, separately spoke "of a hypothetical situation in which use of a condom might be justified: when a woman must have sex with someone who is infected with HIV and therefore must protect herself."

In Mexico, reports the Washington Post, a bishop said in a news conference that condom use could be considered the "lesser evil" if employed to prevent AIDS. "If someone is incapable of controlling (his) instincts ... then they should do whatever is necessary in order not to infect others," said Bishop Felipe Arizmendi of San Cristobal de las Casas.

Msgr. Angel Rodriguez Luno, a professor of moral theology, offers a similar approach in weighing the "morality" of condom use. One possible avenue for a new condom policy, he said, would be a "lesser-of-two-evils" approach, where "condoms could be approved as a means of reducing the instance of danger or sin in cases where someone is bent on having extramarital sex or sex with a spouse while infected with HIV."

* * *

WEIGHING in on the issue, the Irish Independent in an editorial pointed out a "way out" for the Catholic Church on the issue of condom use. Much like St. Thomas Aquinas once argued that prostitution should not be suppressed even though he believed it immoral, on grounds that "lustful" men could be driven to do more evil if they did not have such an outlet, the editorial argued that the Church could also "draw a distinction between what is morally desirable and what happens in the real world if you tried to make it morally perfect."

It added: "Sometimes the common good requires that you turn a blind eye to what's immoral." So why can't the Catholic Church say that "although it believes condom use is immoral and undesirable, what is even less desirable is to have innocent people die because (people living with HIV) won't use condoms when having sex."

If you are pro-life, shouldn't you also be against death?