In response to 'Condoms discussion returns to traditional moral norms', published Volume 16, issue 4:
In this comment, I will seek to explain the traditional rationale behind the argument from the lesser evil. This approach has the advantage that it can show how counseling the use of condoms can be morally acceptable, without in any way challenging the doctrine forbidding contraception. It is thus more likely to be acceptable to Church authorities. It is a very old argument; it goes back to a text of St. Augustine and was accepted by many, but not all moral theologians for centuries.
The argument would be relevant in a situation where a person who carries the virus is determined to engage in intercourse and cannot be persuaded otherwise. The counselor has two options; say nothing and simply allow that person to go ahead and endanger the life of his partner or counsel the use of a condom so as to protect the life of the partner.
A recent Tablet editorial claimed that, according to Humanae Vitae, “There is no leeway for arguments about a lesser evil.” This is not correct. Humanae Vitae states, “Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, . . .” (n. 14). But, in the case under discussion, counseling the use of a condom as the lesser evil does not entail the counselor’s justifying deliberately contraceptive intercourse or justifying the use of the condom as a means of contraception.
To justify an action is to commend that action as right and as a good thing to do. The counselor does not commend the use of a condom as a means of contraception, but as a means of blocking the transmission of the HIV virus. These may seem to be rather fine distinctions, but we sometimes need such distinctions to find our way through complex human situations.
Brian Johnstone, C.SS.R.
Alfonsian Accademy
Rome.
bjohnstone@alfonsiana,edu