Patricia McKeever makes several points in her letter (�Archbishop�s office at odds on immunisation�, August 4) which deserve reply.

Patricia McKeever makes several points in her letter ("Archbishop's office at odds on immunisation", August 4) which deserve reply.

She claims that the immunisation of teenage girls against human papillomavirus (HPV) will "give the green light to promiscuity". Presumably, by this logic teenagers ought not to be encouraged to wear seatbelts when riding in cars, for fear that it may promote joyriding.

As far as I am aware, there is no evidence of any kind that protecting children against a (potentially fatal) sexually transmitted disease will promote any change in their sexual behaviour. For many years now, and with the consent of the Catholic Church, girls of 12 and 13 have been routinely vaccinated against rubella, as this infection can be hugely dangerous to unborn children, and it is, therefore, important to vaccinate girls before child-bearing age.

As far as I am aware, this has not produced an increase in the number of teenage pregnancies in Catholic schools.

If this weren't justification enough for immunisation, Ms McKeever could perhaps reflect that the vaccine against HPV will protect many girls who are entirely sexually inactive.

Mrs McKeever goes on to complain that Archbishop Mario Conti has suggested the use of condoms between HIV-infected couples "in defiance of Vatican statements to the contrary". In actual fact, canon law has long employed the notion of "double-effect". That is to say that an action which may in itself be sinful, may not be sinful if it is the unintended side-effect of another, unsinful act.

So whereas using a condom for the purposes of artificial contraception is sinful, using one as a barrier to prevent HIV infection may be permissible, and the contraceptive effect created merely a side-effect.

Archbishop Conti has a licence in philosophy and another in theology from the Gregorian University in Rome. He is the bishop of one of the largest Catholic dioceses in the UK. On matters of theology, I am more inclined to credit the considered opinion of Archbishop Conti rather than that of Ms McKeever.
Chris McLaughlin,
Giffnock.


I have taught in Catholic schools for many years and have never heard of Patricia McKeever's odd expression "must-purity", although I do know about abstinence, self-worth and responsible sexual behaviour.

Healthy Catholicism usually places "purity" in the context of Marian devotion and the doctrine of the immaculate conception.

It is nonsense to suggest inoculation of young girls against cervical cancer will encourage wanton sexual behaviour. This thinking belongs to the "slippery-slope" school of theology which sits uneasily in a mature church being essentially paternalistic and steeped in original sin.
Anne McKay, Hamilton.