About Us

Michael J. Kelly, S.J.
Church as Servant, Teacher and Prophet In Today's HIV/AIDS Crisis

Any of us in Africa today know the extent and intensity of the HIV/AIDS crisis. How can we as Church effectively respond to that crisis? Michael J. Kelly, S.J., professor at the University of Zambia, suggests four models we should follow. Each has its points of controversy, and the JCTR Bulletin welcomes an exchange of views on these points.

The Church as Servant

When Jesus had finished washing the feet of his disciples during the Last Supper, he gave them a fundamental commission and orientation: "You call me Master and Lord, and rightly - so I am. If I, then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, you must wash each other's feet. I have given you an example so that you may copy what I have done to you" (Jn 13: 13-15).

The Church's response to this challenge of the Lord is to be a servant, to serve the People of God in their needs. In Zambia, the greatest needs of God's people today are those arising out of their experience of HIV/AIDS.

They are suffering pain, grief and human loss on an unimaginable scale. They are coping, and coping magnificently, with orphans in numbers which far exceed anything previously known in human history.

In their suffering, dignity, and patience, the people are showing that their joys and hopes, their griefs and anxieties are not only those of the followers of Christ. They are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of Christ himself among us today.

The outstanding characteristic of the Church's response called for to meet the HIV/AIDS epidemic is service. This of course is a major role that it shares with all other Churches.

The many home-based care networks, the care and compassion shown in mission hospitals, the self-sacrificing dedication of Mother Theresa's Missionaries of Charity, the work of many volunteers, the recently highly acclaimed coherent and organised response of the Catholic Secretariat to the orphans crisis: these and many other ventures bear witness to this priority.

As one manifestation of this service response, the 1999 Zambian Catholic Directory lists 34 urban and rural home-based care projects in Lusaka Archdiocese alone and a further 12 in Ndola Diocese.

In our bewilderment and puzzlement as to how to deal with the problems that HIV/AIDS bring, let us be grateful for the way the Church and its members have shown themselves so faithful to what the Lord asked of us, that we copy what he has done. And let us continue to examine how in our lives, our families, our Small Christian Communities, our parishes, our religious communities, our organisations, we can extend that response of service.

At this time, more than at any other, let us see how we can be Christ to our suffering brothers and sisters, to bereft orphans, to vulnerable children, to grandparents facing yet again the challenge of rearing children.

The Church as Teacher

The Lord also commissioned his Church to teach: "Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations ... and teach them to observe all the commands I gave you" (Mt 28:19, 20).

The teaching role is inspired in part by recognition of how the Lord himself worked with people. He did not hesitate to associate with prostitutes and sinners. He never rejected them, never spurned them.

Following this example, the Church wants us always to accept the person infected with HIV, never to spurn the person suffering from AIDS. Because of the inspiration it draws from the life and practice of the Lord, the Church encourages openness about the disease.

It acknow ledges the brokenness and weakness of its members - clergy, religious and lay. It acknowledges that they may be HIV-infected, but it sees that this is a reason for service and compassion, never for condemnation.

The Church also teaches that even though HIV/AIDS is something new in the a curse sent by God. It is not God's punishment on the world for its evil ways. It is not God's punishment on any human being for promiscuity or sin.

God is every best loving instinct in us, magnified to infinity. God is the one who, like a mother, teaches us to walk, takes us in her arms, holds us close to her face. God is the one who personally entered into our sufferings in the death of Jesus on the cross, so that we might know that God understands suffering and death from inside.

The Church finds it unthinkable that such a God could curse anybody with the affliction of HIV/AIDS. "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son ... not to condemn the world but so that the world might be saved through him" (Jn 3:16,17).

God's concern for the world was greatest, his saving power was at its most intense, when in the mocked, despised, agonising, and almost despairing person of Jesus, he died on the cross.

Today, God still shows that mysterious, deep, powerful love by suffering in a person dying from AIDS, by grieving in a family that loses its loved one, by crying in an orphan left without mother or father.

The Church as the Protector of Morals

Faithful to its commission to teach peoples to observe all the commands that the Lord has taught, the Church energetically defends the principles and practice of morality.

This has been done to such an extent that some people see the teaching role of the Church as being almost exclusively confined to the moral area, and within that area to issues of sex. This is very one-sided!

The instruction from Jesus was to pass on everything he had taught, and his teaching was essentially concerned with showing God as a loving parent and not as a vengeful despot.

In his day-to-day practice, the concern of Jesus was much more with showing love and kindness to others, especially those in any way afflicted, than with details of sexual activity. Most certainly, he spoke out strongly against adultery and fornication and lustful thoughts. But he left it at that. He did not go into further detail.

Faithful to its commission, the Church likewise speaks out strongly against adultery, fornication and lustful thoughts. It also speaks out against the debasement of girls and women which these practices so frequently imply.

The Church further speaks out in defence of the right to life and the sacredness of life. Hence it condemns abortion which is deliberately sought in order to terminate the life of an unborn child.

Also, when speaking about landmarks in the human and Christian vision of marriage, it states that "every action which ... proposes ... to render procreation (conception) impossible" is illicit ( Humanae Vitae, n. 14).

How does this teaching relate to actions which might prevent the transmission of HIV, specifically to the use of condoms?

Is it true to say, as Newsweek did in its edition of 17 July 2000, that Roman Catholicism forbids the use of condoms? We have to think very clearly here. It will help to distinguish two situations: the first within marriage, with sex between a married couple; the second outside of marriage.

The explicit teaching of the Church is that it is unlawful for a married couple to use a condom when they engage in sex, if their straightforward intention is to exclude the possibility of conception.

Special circumstances arise, however, in the case of what is called a discordant couple, that is, where one married person is infected with HIV and the spouse is not. If such a couple engaged in unprotected sex (that is, without the use of a condom), the uninfected partner would risk becoming infected.

But if, when having sex, such a couple uses a condom in order to prevent the transmission of HIV to the one who is not infected, their action is directed to protecting an existing life. It is not directed to preventing the commencement of a new life.

They come together in union as man and wife, in sorrow because the life of one of them is likely to be shortened by HIV, but in mutual support and strengthening of their union by taking care not to put the life of the uninfected partner at risk.

There is a growing consensus among Catholic moral theologians that the Church's teaching finds room for this life-saving, "prophylactic" use of condoms. In this situation, the condom is used to protect against lethal infection. It is not being used to prevent conception. The protection of life takes priority and justifies the use of a condom.

In the second situation, where there is sex outside of marriage, the position of the Church has always been very clear. In every situation and circumstance, sex outside of marriage is unlawful.

Essentially that is as far as the Church goes, for the simple reason that the Church does not legislate for what it regards as an unlawful situation. Hence it does not legislate for any of the circumstances surrounding that situation, such as condom use.

In other words, what the Church prohibits is sex outside marriage. This is what is immoral. This is what should be avoided through abstinence. If however an individual chooses to ignore this prohibition and decides to practice extra-marital sex, the Church does not say - cannot say - how this immoral act should be conducted.

Nevertheless, the sacred principle of the priority of life still stands. Out of this principle flows not merely lawfulness of using a condom when there is a risk of contracting or transmitting the HIV virus, but even the obligation to do so.

Responsible sexuality requires that those engaging in sexual activity take the necessary effective measures to prevent the transmission of HIV and other infections. A leading Catholic ethicist, Roger Burggreave, says, "This prevention is an urgent moral duty and not a non-committal advice or recommendation". 1

This would be the principle governing every act of sexual intercourse where there is a risk of HIV infection. It does not matter whether one is talking about fornication where neither party is married or about adultery where the intercourse is with somebody other than one's lawful spouse.

It does not make any difference whether one is talking about casual sex or commercial sex, about heterosexual or homosexual activity.

The situation does not change according to the age of those involved; neither does it change according to whether it is a man or a boy who initiates the sex or whether it is a girl or a woman.

Even in an unlawful union, the protection of life is the overarching principle, and hence, arises the obligation to protect oneself or one's partner against the life-threatening HIV infection.

Some may fear that the application of this teaching might lead to promiscuity, that it would serve as an encouragement to young people to engage freely in sex since it provides them with a way of protecting themselves against the HIV infection. It does not have to be so.

The guiding principle for a young person (indeed for every person) is to develop a mature sexuality that can realise its ultimate expression in a loving, sensitive and permanent relationship of union with another.

Abstinence, deliberately chosen, freely striven for, supports this development. That is why it should inspire the life and behaviour of an unmarried person. In doing so, it also provides infallible protection against the HIV infection. Hence, for an unmarried person, abstinence arising from a healthy sexuality is the first line of defence against HIV/AIDS.

But there is no reason to fear that having a fall-back protection against the HIV infection, for circumstances where such abstinence is not observed, will promote irresponsible sexual behaviour.

The first rule of the road is to drive carefully so that there will not be an accident. But one wears a seat belt so that if an accident should occur, there will be less risk of fatal damage. Wearing the seat belt is an act of responsibility. It does not encourage careless driving, but protects against the harmful outcome of such driving, e.g., accidents.

The use of condoms in sexual encounters between unmarried persons is an act of responsibility. Sanctioning their use does not encourage a careless sex life, but protects against the possible life-threatening outcome of the unlawful activity.

The Church as Prophet and Leader

At the Last Supper, Jesus promised his disciples that he would send them "another Paraclete to be with them for ever, the Spirit of truth whom the world can never accept" (Jn 14:17).

He promised them that as his Church they would understand things in ways that the world does not understand them and that they would be strengthened to proclaim these insights fearlessly.

The Church has always exercised this prophetic, leadership role. It has spoken out strongly, fearlessly. It has pointed out new directions. It has resisted oppressors. It has sided with the weak and powerless. It has always taken to heart Our Lady's words about scattering the proudhearted, casting the mighty from their thrones, raising the lowly.

The whole thrust of Church teaching and action in favour of the poor is an expression of this. Its deep concern for justice, for an equitable distribution of the goods of this world, for the preservation of the world's ecological heritage, springs from the same prophetic charism.

At the same time, the Church recognises its fragility and brokenness. It acknowledges that many times it has not spoken out fearlessly enough or strongly enough. It is aware that at times it has repeated the weakness of Simon Peter: it has temporised, it has been too cautious and fearful, it has been too silent.

With HIV/AIDS it has been the same as with other areas. The Church has spoken and acted for the lowly, for the afflicted. It has reached out in prophetic gestures to those that are afflicted. A dramatic expression of this occurred in a nearby country when the local priests refused to visit a woman who had AIDS because she had been a sex worker.

When the Bishop heard about this, he made a point of visiting the woman regularly until her death and celebrated her funeral Mass with solemnity in his cathedral.

We need more leaders like that Bishop. We need more prophetic gestures of this kind. We need the Church to come out now and use its powerful moral influence and leadership to break once and for all the choking silence that surrounds HIV/AIDS.

This silence leads to stigma and discrimination, and all three - silence, stigma and discrimination - only serve to make it easier to transmit the disease.

Unfortunately, the Church in its official aspect was not very conspicuous at the July 2000 International AIDS Conference held in Durban. Likewise, it was hardly represented at all at the ICASA Conference in Lusaka last year.

Once again, like Simon Peter, it may have been too silent. But people are looking to the Church to speak, looking to it for leadership.

They want to hear it proclaim loud and clear that persons living with HIV/AIDS are God's very dear children, our privileged sisters and brothers who are called upon to do within five to seven years what will take forty to fifty years for the rest of us to accomplish - fight the good fight, finish the race, fulfill their God-given potential "in the mystery of the love that can and does bear all their wounds".

People also want to hear the Church proclaim that there is a gravely unjust situation today in which some, a few, can literally buy life, while millions will never be able to afford the cost of extremely expensive life-preserving drugs and treatment.

They want to hear the Church speak out on behalf of the empowerment of women and their right to control their own sexual lives, seeing this as possibly the single most potent way for reducing the transmission of HIV.

People want the Church to work ever more strenuously to break down all those barriers which only corral situations in which HIV/AIDS thrives and flourishes: the walls between the rich and the poor, between the North and the South, between the debtors and the creditors, between the sick and the well, between town and country, between the educated and the uneducated.

The world wants the Church to work more fearlessly towards the day when every wall will be torn down and there will be no more male or female, no more Jew or Greek, but all will be one person in Jesus Christ.

Today, the body of Christ has AIDS. But Christ having been raised from the dead will never die again.

This faith inspires all believers that one day they will see every member of the body of Christ as an AIDS-free person in the AIDS-free reign of God. This is the prophetic message of hope that all humanity yearns to hear from the Church.

1) Ethics of ResponsIbility

The absolute minimum responsibility for young people who move into intimate sexual contact with their occasional, varying or semidetached partners, concretely consists in taking the necessary efficient measures so that pregnancy, HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and infections are prevented. This is a form of respect for life, the bottom line of which is expressed in the Commandment "you shall not kill". Not only does it require respect towards one's own life and health, but also toward that of the partner and of the possible third person who can be conceived (or infected by oneself or the partner). It is also a form of honesty toward society which is often saddled with the "consequences" when one does not take up one's responsibility. This prevention is an urgent moral duty and not a non-committal advice or recommendation.

Responsible sexuality implies also the task of obtaining information. Individuals should obtain information about risky behaviour.... However, it is not as simple to determine which information is the most reliable and which information best serves human dignity. That is why society, which is responsible for the general welfare and public health, has a duty toward prevention and information.

[Roger Burggreave, Professor of Moral Theology, Catholic University Leuven: "From Responsible to Meaningful Sexuality", p. 305, Catholic Ethicists on HIV/AIDS Prevention (eds. J. F. Keenan, S.J., et.al. ; New York, Concilium Publications, 2000)].