The Bishops' Split on AIDS

By Richard N. Ostling

However they may squabble behind closed doors, America's Roman Catholic bishops have always sought to display a united front in public, on matters ranging from nuclear arms to the U.S. economy. Last week that carefully orchestrated unity crumpled when the bishops divided over the issue of whether education on the use of condoms to limit AIDS infection is morally acceptable.

The feuding erupted over portions of a 30-page document released by the nation's bishops that seemed at least to tolerate such instruction as a lesser evil. The hierarchy's 50-member administrative board argued that public education should stress the traditional Christian virtue of abstinence from sex apart from marriage, along with avoidance of intravenous drug use, as the best and morally correct method of containing the AIDS epidemic. But, it acknowledged, in a pluralistic society some people will simply not accept such strictures. Thus, said the bishops, accurate information about prophylactic devices "as a potential means of preventing AIDS" could be included in educational programs. However, they explained, "we are not promoting the use of prophylactics, but merely providing information."

The document, adopted unanimously by the board but not completed until after adjournment of the bishops' annual meeting, took a number of prelates by surprise. Some were appalled; others found the text woefully fuzzy. Early off the mark was John Cardinal O'Connor of New York City, who called the document a "grave mistake." O'Connor, a leader of the conservative, Rome-oriented wing of U.S. Catholicism and the only clergyman on President Reagan's AIDS commission, complained that it had caused "serious confusion" among Catholics and in the press. Conservative Cardinals John Krol of Philadelphia and Bernard Law of Boston were among the prominent churchmen registering protests.

Support for the new stand came from Joseph Bernardin of Chicago, the only Cardinal on the bishops' administrative board and a member of the panel that drafted the document. Bernardin, the chief spokesman of the more liberal wing of the U.S. hierarchy, said he was "pleased" with the new policy because it is "faithful to the Catholic doctrinal and moral tradition, and it is sensitive to the human dimensions of the issue."

A clear division emerged between the Bernardin group and Pope John Paul II's more recent conservative appointees, notably Law and O'Connor. As other bishops across the U.S. last week lined up on either side of the argument, it was widely speculated that the issue went beyond condoms and involved a struggle for ascendancy in the American church. Said Syndicated Columnist Joseph Sobran, a conservative Catholic: "It's all come to a head in this statement."

According to church teaching, heterosexual use of condoms is wrong because it is unnatural to interfere with the act that transmits life. Though this is not the issue with homosexuals, the church does not want to appear to be condoning homosexual acts. Proponents of the new AIDS policy argue that providing information about condoms may be justified and even in keeping with moral theology in order to prevent the greater evil of spreading the lethal AIDS virus. Critics argue that it will encourage many, particularly teenagers, to believe the bishops are advising "If you can't be good, be careful."

Reaction in the Vatican, which flatly opposes condom education, ranged from silence to cold fury. "I would hope they'd get the statement straightened out soon -- before Christmas," snapped a Curia staff member. If the Americans do not act, he vowed, "Rome will." But a ranking Vatican official said no quick response is anticipated. Pope John Paul's thinking may become known in February, when the first of several contingents of American bishops arrives in Rome for periodic in-person reports to the Pontiff.

With reporting by Sam Allis/Rome and Jeannie Ralston/New York