Bishops’ New AIDS Statement Sparked by Controversy, Fear : Analysis

The now-settled dispute among the nation’s Catholic bishops over their condom-mentioning AIDS statement of six months ago has had an ironical theme. The controversy arose mainly because of fear that the church’s stance on condoms would be misunderstood on the basis of news reports, and it ended with a compromise forged out of fear that the bishops were being depicted by the media as strongly divided.

Several prominent bishops sharply criticized the statement released by the hierarchy’s 50-member administrative board in December, saying they feared that the faithful could misunderstand news stories about it to mean that the church was easing opposition to prophylactics.

Many were frankly surprised that news organizations focused on the one small section of the 30-page document, “The Many Faces of AIDS,” that said that in communitywide educational efforts the use of condoms recommended by public health agencies as a disease deterrent could be mentioned by Catholics to people in danger of catching or spreading the fatal disease. But the same section also emphasized sexual abstinence as the best and only morally correct answer, adding that recommending condoms tends to encourage sex outside of heterosexual marriage.

Portion Made News

That part of the document was news because it was unusual for any official church statement to make that limited concession. Most news stories accurately reflected those points; others did not. For example, a two-sentence item on the front page of the Wall Street Journal on Dec. 11 confirmed the fears of some bishops that oversimplified accounts could mislead Catholics. Citing the document’s observation that not everyone agrees with Catholic teachings on sexuality, the news item said the bishops “recommended that they be taught how to use condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS.”

Some bishops, notably Cardinals John O’Connor of New York and Bernard Law of Boston, repudiated the document and called for a revision.

Other bishops, notably Chicago Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, praised the document as a timely, compassionate guide for church response to the disease. Later, ethicist Richard A. McCormick of Notre Dame would term it “a splendid piece of theological and pastoral composition.”

St. Louis Archbishop John May, president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and head of the administrative board, announced in late December that he would recommend a full, open-ended discussion on the subject by all the bishops at their June meeting in Collegeville, Minn.

But when a New York Times story interpreted May’s decision as one to “set aside” the document, May strongly denied that was the case and gave every indication that he did not want to discard or revise the statement adopted unanimously by the 50 cardinals, archbishops and bishops elected by their peers to serve on the administrative board.

The compromise reached Monday by the nation’s bishops in Collegeville permits them to retain that original statement--which in booklet form has already sold more than 32,000 copies--and to write an updated, expanded policy for input and approval by the full body of more than 300 bishops.

By all accounts of the closed-door meeting, the bishops settled on that solution primarily because they did not want to be portrayed in the news as divided and quarrelsome. Not only unity, but also the appearance of unity to the outside world were important.

“What we experienced at Collegeville was a tremendous reaffirmation of the unity of the bishops and the desire not to be perceived as divided in their role as teachers,” said Auxiliary Bishop Carl Fisher of Los Angeles. Bishops who spoke tended to say that the press exaggerated the disharmony among the bishops, Fisher said.

Impasse Was Real

However, the impasse was real, according to Bernardin, a co-author of the AIDS statement. In proposing the compromise that was seconded by Cardinal Law and unanimously adopted, Bernardin warned his colleagues that the dispute should not be allowed “to continue festering.” It was not proper to count how many bishops were on each side of the debate, he said, and whether the problems with the statement were “real or perceived.”

He said he doubted that many Catholic faithful believed the church had changed its opposition to prophylactics.

To bishops who initially called for a retraction of the document, Bernardin said, “That would be imprudent . . . disastrous.

“Withdrawal could give the impression that the entire document is flawed and that the entire administrative board was in serious error. Such action could reopen the debate with a greater intensity,” he said.

“Our unity must be restored so that we can get on with our business,” Bernardin said. “In a real sense, that is the larger issue which is at stake.”

He proposed that May appoint a committee to develop an updated policy statement but using the existing AIDS document as “the stepping-off point.”

In one of many written statements submitted in advance to the bishops, O’Connor described the statement as an inadequate teaching document and said that advisers told him the references to condoms was “gravely misleading from a pragmatic point of view, quite apart from the moral.”

When it came time at the meeting for O’Connor to verbally summarize his commentary, however, the outspoken cardinal set aside his earlier stance, expressed regret for how he is depicted in the news media and, speaking very briefly, supported Bernardin’s proposal, according to Fisher.

The adopted compromise also calls for discussion on the new statement’s contents with the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, after the recent advice of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who heads that body. The concerns he expressed in the letter distributed at the Minnesota meeting were shared by the Pope, he said.

Again, the effect of news reports was listed first. Ratzinger said the “lively discussion, widened and sometimes distorted by the press worldwide,” generated “a good deal of confusion regarding the authentic Catholic position on the moral problems involved.” Ratzinger said the Holy See was concerned that the unity of the bishops in teaching moral doctrine be publicly demonstrated.

Ratzinger did raise one theological point that will likely remain a difficult issue when the new AIDS paper is written and debated. The AIDS statement now advises health care professionals “to invite a patient at risk, or one who already has been exposed to the disease, to live a chaste life.”

“If it is obvious that the person will not act without bringing harm to others,” the statement continues, “then the traditional Catholic wisdom with regard to one’s responsibility to avoid inflicting greater harm may be appropriately applied.”

Ratzinger wrote that “it hardly seems pertinent to appeal to the classical principle of tolerance of the lesser evil.” Even when participating in government-backed educational programs, Ratzinger said, “one would not be dealing simply with a form of passive toleration but rather with a kind of behavior which would result in at least the facilitation of evil.”

‘Lesser Evil’ Principle

In written and oral comments at the bishops’ meeting, however, some prelates believed that the “lesser evil” principle was appropriate in view of the danger of the disease’s spread. “Not to raise the issue of condoms in the current social context would render our approach less than credible, less than effective,” wrote Bishop Anthony Pilla of Cleveland.

Bernardin told reporters last Monday that the administrative board “felt sincerely that (the statement) was based on sound theology,” but added that in view of questions raised, the “problematic points” will be discussed during the development of the new paper.

May, who will appoint the writing committee, said he doubts that something will be available for discussion at the annual mid-November meeting of the bishops.

Fisher, who is black, said this week he will ask to serve on the committee. “I certainly think we should have a black and a Hispanic bishop on this committee, unfortunately because of the significant impact of the disease in minority communities,” he said.