Another moral conundrum

Another interesting story I read recently.

The Pope of the Roman Catholic Church on his visit to Africa was reported as arguing against the use of condoms as protection against getting infected by HIV. According to the report Pope Benedict argued that condoms made the problem worse. In this the Pope is reinforcing traditional Catholic teaching on human sexuality, in which the only legitimate place for sex is within the confines of monogamous heterosexual marriage and all forms of birth control are sin.

Africa has one of the highest rates of infections of the virus in the world and in recent years health workers have advocated "safe-sex" via the use of condoms to reduce the infection rate. The response of the advocates of "safe-sex" to the Pope's pronouncements has been one of horror, arguing that the Pope has shown an ignorance of the cultural reality that has lead to the high rates of infection. By condemning the use of condoms, the Pope’s critics argue that he has set back the anti-AIDs programme by years.

Evangelicals do not necessarily see the use of birth control as sinful. But they agree with the Catholic Church’s teaching that the only place for sex is within the confines of heterosexual marriage. Thus many conservative evangelical groups have also been highly critical of the safe-sex message seeing it as advocating promiscuity leading to higher rates of STIs.

Condoms work by placing a barrier in the way of transmission of the virus between sexual partners. But they are not 100% effective. It is accepted that there is a failure rate even if used correctly. Annual average failure rates resulting in pregnancy have been estimated as between 10% - 36%. And when there is a failure there will be a transfer of body fluids that carry the risk of transmitting the HIV virus.

Thus the only 100% effective way to prevent sexual transmission is abstinence. But abstinence would require a major shift in sexual behaviour. And changing sexual behaviour within any group is very difficult. Even within Evangelical teenagers who have taken the purity pledge of no sex before marriage a large number lose their virginity before marriage. It has been estimated that such pledges have only a 5-10% success rate. The pressures of living in a culture that places a low priority on chastity overwhelms the good intentions expressed when the teens made the pledge. And each sexual experience carries the risk of infection with an STI such as HIV.

What then for Africa and its millions of AIDs sufferers? Should one take the morally pure road, and teach an abstinence only message which fails to take into account the cultural realities. Or should one accept the culture as it is and see condoms as a harm minimisation measure (a sexual equivalent of a clean needle exchange programme amongst intravenous drug users) despite its high failure rate?

A moral condundrum

The other day I read a newspaper report of the tragic case of a 9 year old Brazilian girl who was raped by her step-father which resulted in the girl getting pregnant with twins. Two medical doctors looking after the girl decided that it would be better for the physical and mental health of the girl that she had an abortion. Both of the doctors and the family of the girl were catholic, and the Catholic Church has a strict teaching against abortion and on learning of what happened, Archibishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho excommunicated both of the doctors as well as the family of the girl. The family member whose selfish and repugnant act had resulted in the girl getting pregnant, as well as no doubt causing severe psychological and emotional trauma was not excommunicated. According to the Cardinal quoted in the report the reason for excommunicating the doctors and the family members while not excommunicating the girl’s abuser was that the killing of the unborn twins was a much greater sin than the rape of the girl.

The case raises a number of thorny moral dilemmas for conservative Christians, most notably is whether an abortion unacceptable in all cases. Is the life of the unborn so sacred that the health and well being of an innocent child like the nine year old in this case must take second place? For though she was physically is capable of conceiving, is she emotionally able to cope with an unplanned pregnancy at so young an age on top of the trauma she suffered from the rape. And is she physically able to carry the twins to full term without putting her own health or even life at risk.

It is my view that the emotional and physical health of the girl takes precedence. Therefore I would support the actions of the Doctors and the family of the girl against the teachings of the church.

The second dilemma is how to deal with the perpetrator of the abuse. At the heart of Christianity is the idea of unmerited forgiveness. All have sinned and come short of God's standard but through the atonement all can be forgiven. But how is possible to reconcile forgiveness with an act that involved a violation of trust at its most basic level. As adults we need to protect our children. At the same time as Christians we are called to forgive all offenses, no matter how serious and repugnant.

The question I have is is it really possible to forgive in a case such as this. I know that I would find forgiveness in this situation difficult, if not impossible.