Benedict XVI was recently quoted as saying:
"There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility," Benedict said.
The church "of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but in this or that case, there can be nonetheless in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality," according to an English translation of the book obtained by The Associated Press.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_POPE_CONDOMS?SITE=WCNC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Assuming the quotes are accurate, I find his illustration a bit puzzling. What does the pope think are the situations when a male prostitute would even have occasion use a condom? Now I’ll be the first to admit that I haven’t bothered to study this issue, but just offhand, I assume male prostitution involves activities like oral sex and anal sex. Concerning the former, does the pope think condoms are used when performing fellatio?
In the case of anal sex, either the john is the active party and the prostitute is the passive party, or vice versa. Only the active party would even have occasion to use a condom. If the prostitute is the passive party, he can’t make demands on the john. He is there to service the john, for a price.
At most, I suppose the use of a condom would only make sense in case the (male) prostitute is the active party. But if the prostitute donned a condom in that particular case, it only be to either (i) protect himself from infection or (ii) protect the john from infection if the john demanded it.
Offhand, I don’t see any permutation in which a male prostitute would voluntarily wear a condom for the benefit of the john.
Of course, it would be nice if we could avoid the sordid details, but since this is the pope’s chosen illustration, and since the relevance of condom use in this situation happens to turn on the gritty details, that’s unavoidable if we hope to make sense of his statement. Unfortunately, parse it however I may, it doesn’t make much sense. So I wonder if Benedict XVI knows what he is talking about. Has he even thought this through?
However, given my own admitted ignorance of the subject, it’s quite possible that I’m overlooking some subtle nuance.
"AIDS has quietly caused the deaths of hundreds of Roman Catholic priests in the United States although other causes may be listed on some of their death certificates, the Kansas City Star reported today. The newspaper said its examination of death certificates and interviews with experts indicates several hundred priests have died of AIDS-related illnesses since the mid-1980s. The death rate of priests from AIDS is at least four times that of the general population, the newspaper said. Kansas City Bishop Raymond Boland says the AIDS deaths show that priests are human."
ReplyDeleteRead the rest at The Gay Priest Problem.
Perhaps some of the Catholic priests who died from AIDS might not have died if both they and their partners had worn condoms. As a secondary moral obligation, that is.
-------
"On popes and prostitutes"
I'm not sure, but I think there are Catholic historians who have noted that there have been some popes who had sex with prostitutes.
Jeremy Pierce characterized this as a secondary moral obligation. He raises a point that you might find interesting, which is whether the pope would consider the same obligation for a female prostitute (where conception is possible).
ReplyDeletehttp://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/11/pope-condom/
What he's suggesting is that using a condom is the "lesser" of two evils as he sees it and could even allow them to see these relationships through a more moral framework.
ReplyDeleteYes, prostitution is a degraded relationship, but that does not necessarily mean that those who partake are necessarily going to exhibit the most depraved behavior. For example, not all (or even many?) heterosexual men who visit the Nevada whore houses will also have a desire to beat, torture or otherwise humiliate the prostitutes they're paying for.
Also, to suggest that a prostitute is unable to make any moral choice at all shows your own basic lack of knowledge of human behavior.
And no, I've never had sex with a prostitute.
JAMES SAID:
ReplyDelete"Also, to suggest that a prostitute is unable to make any moral choice at all shows your own basic lack of knowledge of human behavior."
We can always count on you to demagogue the issues. Is that what I suggested? No.
I had specific reference to what might motivate a male prostitute to don a condom. Is it for the good of the john?
"I had specific reference to what might motivate a male prostitute to don a condom. Is it for the good of the john?"
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't know for certain.
Self-protection is probably a motivator for many. However, I have read of instances of people using condoms because they know they are HIV+ and wish to avoid transmitting it to others. If they already have it, what other reason would they use them other than for some sense of moral necessity?
As with many things, I think people's motivations in this regard are complex.
But back to the Pope. It will be a rare day for me to defend the current one, but I do think it's good that he's aware of the moral nuance of some situations. Why he rejects the validity of contraception in HIV-discordant heterosexual married couples is beyond me, though.
JAMES SAID:
ReplyDelete"However, I have read of instances of people using condoms because they know they are HIV+ and wish to avoid transmitting it to others."
We're not taking about HIV+ wives or husbands or something like that. We're talking about male prostitutes and their johns.
Wouldn't it be in a male prostitute's best interest to protect his clients? After all, one supposes that even in the seedy world of prostitution, "business owners" may gain reputations for themselves.
ReplyDeleteA male prostitute who's known for infecting his clients with AIDS might not do very well for himself in the long run.
Dominic,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. That, however, would be an act of self-interest. To stay in business. It wouldn't be motivated by acting in the best interests of the john. Therefore, I don't see that the pope's argument is psychologically plausible.