AIDS AND ETHICS

When criticising Catholics for  “struggling how best to address the HIV/AIDS pandemic from an ethical and theological perspective, while the virus is still spreading,” (JCTR Bulletin NO. 61) we should remember that more than a quarter of the world's AIDS-treatment centres are Catholic (ZENIT News Agency, 24 November, 2004).  So Catholics have not been fiddling while the world burns and can afford what you call the “luxury” of reflecting on how to ensure that what they do for Aids prevention is also ethical.  It was not a Catholic who said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.”

Having rejected condoms as contraceptives, it is natural that Catholics, since they wish to be consistent and loyal to truth, should ask whether or not they might be acceptable as prophylactics.  Michael Kelly and others have argued convincingly that they ought to be.  The article which stirred your ire was my contribution to this discussion, pointing out that this moral problem only arises within marriage and that however licit condoms may be in individual acts they have a failure rate and do not give long term protection in a series of acts.  Every schoolboy knows that if you go on throwing a dice you are bound to get a six.  Why not direct your anger to the AIDS Establishment who go on promoting condoms as the remedy to the HIV Crisis “while the virus is still spreading?”

You say, “Richard Cremins is still fighting against his favourite enemies: condoms and infidelity in all its pre-marital and marital appearances,” and then add, “Alone, who cares?”  In view of that codicil, it is hard to believe that you have seen Malawi’s Aids Strategic Framework or its Agenda for Action, where we read about the need to reform “cultural influences which condone premarital and extramarital sex” (Strategy 10.5.1).  The President of Malawi seems to share this view.  You may have heard his address to the students at Kamuzu Academy, when he urged them to clean living and told them that although condom sales had been rising, the incidence of HIV infection was also growing.

I think a more careful reading of my article will show that I am not an enemy of condoms.  I quote the opinion that they are licit as prophylactics with approval.  [Since then I have heard arguments which have shaken my certainty.  But that is beside our point].  I temper this view with the warning that relying on them is dangerous and that in the long run they give little or no protection.  Though I see no objection to their use in fornication or adultery, the two most common ways of passing on HIV, I do consider that those who promote condoms as though they were perfectly safe (as happens in Malawi) are enemies of the truth and are leading people to their death.

That the only sure way of avoiding HIV is in harmony with what you consider to be the “inhuman approach of Roman Catholic moral teachings” is a coincidence which may make it difficult for many to accept.  It also explains why those who advocate it are easily perceived as moralising, especially if they happen to be Catholic priests.

If condoms were as effective against HIV as chastity I could be promoting them.  The reason I write against relying on them is that they do not work.  The conclusion of my article was, “We need not oppose using condoms as prophylactics, but we do need to avoid giving the impression that it works.  People who rely on a condom to protect themselves against HIV have a right to know they are at risk.”

The article that provoked your strictures advocated a “strategy based on the pragmatic truth that the only sure way of avoiding HIV is chastity before and after marriage.”  There is nothing about what you call “ethical or theological perspectives” in that.

I confirmed my stance with the authority of a research carried out for UNAIDS but still not published by them, possibly because it gave the wrong answer:  "There are no definite examples yet of generalised epidemics that have been turned back by prevention programs based primarily on condom promotion."

Alone, who cares? Remember Athanasius.

“Has ever anybody changed his or her thinking or behaviour because of ethical or theological perspectives?”  This is a surprising question from one who has taught Theology in a University.  One only has to think of Augustine and countless others through the ages who have been converted to virtuous living through confrontation with truth and the Gospel.

“Publish a list of persons (with surname, first name, date of birth and residence) who have changed their sexual attitudes and behaviour after listening to you.”  If you care to come around to FAMLI's office in Onions Complex, which is only a few hundred metres from your own, I will introduce you to Charles, Cyprian, Albert, Florence, Justina, Anne and other members of Youth Alive.  I can also bring you to meet some of the thousands of couples in urban and rural Lilongwe who have followed FAMLI's courses during the last two and a half years.  They will be able to provide the personal details you want.

Meanwhile, I invite you to publish your own list of persons who have been saved by condoms from HIV until their natural death and of communities where the spread of HIV has “been turned back by prevention programs based primarily on condom promotion."  But please do not tell me about the prostitutes in Bangkok because the reduction of HIV among them was accompanied by a decrease in the numbers of their clients.

Finally, I thank you for your glimpse of the Last Judgement and your assurance that the Lord will say, “And you Richard, well done.”  However, I hope He will not do the right thing for the wrong reason. If He rewards me for keeping up moral standards, he will, like yourself, have got it wrong.  In connection with AIDS I never speak of morality, but only of what does and does not work.  I would like to be rewarded for abstinence from self-deception and fidelity to the truth.

I cannot forecast what the Judge will say to you.  But if, like the Aids Establishment, you persist in ignoring facts I would not be as optimistic as you are about me.

Finally, let me say I am not happy to be squabbling like this, not least because of its effect on ecumenism, of which I have considered you to be a leading light.  Why should we not collaborate, according to our lights, in confronting Malawi’s HIV crisis? 

Richard Cremins, S.J.
Jesuit Community
Lilongwe