HIV question

[epan]

Yes, he spoke about it, but no he did not say it might be acceptable as a “lesser evil”. That was commonly reported but wholly wrong. What he said was that it shows that there is a moral awakening on the part of the person-- their desire to do good in not spreading disease-- but that the action remains intrinsically evil and is not a solution.

Thanks. I wonder sometimes at the unattainable (for many) standards. People are going to be sexually active, whether considered sinful or not. But this case is potentially the case of a married couple. When I balance disease prevention against against the “evil” of interrupting insemination, the scales seem to favor condom use.

Taking the argument to one possible conclusion, should a person be willing to sacrifice his own life in order not to thwart any possibility of pregnancy?

 

[1ke]

Thanks. I wonder sometimes at the unattainable (for many) standards. People are going to be sexually active, whether considered sinful or not. But this case is potentially the case of a married couple. When I balance disease prevention against against the “evil” of interrupting insemination, the scales seem to favor condom use.

Something our forefathers knew much better than we did: this life is temporary and fleeting. Eternity is what matters. We moderns think we are in control, have lost the sense of sin, and it’s eternal consequences.

I don’t think pretending sinning is OK is ever helpful to people.

Taking the argument to one possible conclusion, should a person be willing to sacrifice his own life in order not to thwart any possibility of pregnancy?

And, I repeat. The choice is to marry or not to marry.

 

[1ke]

So, in the case of a mortal sin, then there is no requirement of intent?

That is not what I said.

What I did say is that good intent cannot make a bad action into a good one.

See the Catechism:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5R.HTM

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5S.HTM

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.
  The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object

 

[epan]

And, I repeat. The choice is to marry or not to marry.

Your observation is incomplete: One of the choices is whether to marry or not to marry.

 

[epan]

That is not what I said.

What I did say is that good intent cannot make a bad action into a good one.

See the Catechism:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5R.HTM

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5S.HTM

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.
  The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object

Thanks.

 

[Rau]

…What would Church teaching say in this case. Would there be opposition to in vitro fertilization? How about a surrogate mother to carry the child through pregnancy? How about the husband’s use of condoms for disease prevention, when they do intend to have children?

Church teaching holds:

• IVF is always wrong;
• Condom use by a married couple is wrong, though the sin is not necessarily that of contraception. The Church teaches that every conjugal act be “per se, apt for generation of life”. So an act with condom in place is immoral for the same reason that various sexual acts (eg, mutual masturbation) are immoral despite there having been no contraceptive intent.

See the following article entitled “Conjugal Love, Condoms and HIV/AIDS” for more on the 2nd bullet point. There is a .pdf that can be downloaded at that link which is more detailed than the web page itself.
communio-icr.com/articles/view/conjugal-love-condoms-and-hiv-aids