HIV, The Wretched of the Earth, and CC's Teaching

[nerfherder]

No one is telling people God wants them to die a horrible death-they are telling them if they follow the teachings of God’s Church they wont get the disease in the first place.

There are many who are infected who have had no choice in the matter. I am not sure if this has been discussed yet, but choice is a big issue wrt HIV.

 

[nerfherder]

That is the point contraception is immoral and wrong even in marriage. It perverts the very nature of marriage. Condoms are a contraceptive even if the intent is to avoid HIV. An immoral action even with good intentions is still immoral.

As far as condoms even working to prevent HIV in couples. Try looking for research not published by the UN, Planned Parenthood and Condom manufactures. Over an extended period of time it doesn’t work.

To Jack as far as what Jesus would do…

Jesus would never tell someone to sin to avoid death.

We have already had a list of vatican-sourced research on condoms. UNAIDS is not an agency that is beholden to anyone but the United Nations - it represents all the UN agencies that have an interest in the pandemic, including Unicef (children), UNDP (development), etc.

The research showing that condoms are very effective is generally accepted by the international community, and it may not be fruitful to discuss that further, unless you can find some very objective research findings that prove otherwise.

 

[LJN21]

I’m drawing a parallel between two types of (usually) latex products which are believed by most to offer some protection against HIV transmission, since previous posts have called that belief into question.

Your kidding me right?

Regardless of what he is told, if he is not at all protected then he’s playing Russian roulette; considering the thousands of doctors in that postion (including Catholic ones) my question is, is it moral, especially if he is liable to unknowingly pass the infection on to his spouse?

Should he just let the patients suffer/die so that he doesn’t bring death to himself and his wife? I repeat, tests (however recent) are only a safeguard to the extent that the patients abstain from sex between the test and their interaction with the doctor.

Gloves and condoms are both objects, they are moral neutral. Its how they are used that determines the morality of the situation.

Not using gloves in medical procedures is not good, possibly immoral, I’m not sure.

Using a condom to say… cover a vaginal ultrasound wand, perfectly okay.

Using a condom while having sex is immoral as would using anything (glove ) actively removes the procreative element.

 

[estesbob]

We have already had a list of vatican-sourced research on condoms. UNAIDS is not an agency that is beholden to anyone but the United Nations - it represents all the UN agencies that have an interest in the pandemic, including Unicef (children), UNDP (development), etc.

The research showing that condoms are very effective is generally accepted by the international community, and it may not be fruitful to discuss that further, unless you can find some very objective research findings that prove otherwise.

When talking about spreading a fatal disease “very effective” is just as bad as not very effective. People with AIDS should not be having sex(unless their partner also has AIDS,) The idea that its ok becuase if they use a condom there is only a 2 in 100 chance they will kill their partner is specious.

 

[nerfherder]

If someone is raped do you really believe their attacker would have used a condom if only the Church approved of their use?

The views i express are not “my” views. they are the views of the One True Church, the Church founded by Jesus Christ. If you take issue with those views you should take it up with him. Thats what I did. I used to have huge problems with Church on Contraception. After studying Humanae Vitae and much prayer i realized , as always, the Church was correct.

There are now female condoms (Femidom) that can protect females. Further, male rapists may use a condom to avoid being infected themselves, if they are not HIV+ already.

Right, I think it is time for someone to find the statement that sets out exactly the policy of CC on condoms. I am not sure what ‘policy’ means here: is it doctrine, dogma, Canon Law, a Vatican/papal statement?
It would help us all to know exactly what the stance of the Church is right now, today, and what status the rule on condoms has. Fr K has indicated that there is one interpretation of current CC policy which creates an obligation to use a condom where it will save life, giving priority to that over procreation.

 

[LJN21]

We have already had a list of vatican-sourced research on condoms. UNAIDS is not an agency that is beholden to anyone but the United Nations - it represents all the UN agencies that have an interest in the pandemic, including Unicef (children), UNDP (development), etc.

The research showing that condoms are very effective is generally accepted by the international community, and it may not be fruitful to discuss that further, unless you can find some very objective research findings that prove otherwise.

All the official teaching on the matter I have found says it is condom use is always immoral.

USCCB
usccb.org/sdwp/international/mfa87.htm

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
newadvent.org/library/docs_df88ai.htm

The views of the international community do not reflect morality, in fact in many ways it is directly opposed to Catholic Teaching.

Whats more just because someone works in or near the Vatican and has a roman collar doesn’t mean he has the power to make statements contrary to the persistent teaching of the Church.

 

[nerfherder]

False premise. Nowhere does the Church tell people they should die rather than wear a condom. If people followed the Church’s teaching on sexualtiy there would be no AIDS.

That statement, sorry, is totally false. We believe the prion (part of a virus) was transmitted from a monkey to man, probably in the Congo, where certain tribes do eat monkey meat. That happened by eating, not by sex.

Transmission is not always by sex, as we have pointed out earlier, and if it is by sex, it is not always by choice. People cannot always follow the Church’s teaching on this. Abstinence yest. Being faithful to one’s partner, yes. Condom, yes, as the last resort = ABC.

 

[estesbob]

There are now female condoms (Femidom) that can protect females. Further, male rapists may use a condom to avoid being infected themselves, if they are not HIV+ already.

Right, I think it is time for someone to find the statement that sets out exactly the policy of CC on condoms. I am not sure what ‘policy’ means here: is it doctrine, dogma, Canon Law, a Vatican/papal statement?
It would help us all to know exactly what the stance of the Church is right now, today, and what status the rule on condoms has. Fr K has indicated that there is one interpretation of current CC policy which creates an obligation to use a condom where it will save life, giving priority to that over procreation.

Fr Ks opinions are irelevant. He does not speak for the Church and the Church could not be clearer about the use of condomns. In addtion as has pointed out ad nauseum using a condom does NOT save a life.

I note you are converitng to Catholicsm. At one time(even though I am a cradle Catholic) I felt the same way you do about condoms and contraception in General. I strongly suggest you read Humanae Vitae. Take special note of what Paul VI says the fruits of widespread contraception will be.:

**17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection. **

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

[estesbob]

That statement, sorry, is totally false. We believe the prion (part of a virus) was transmitted from a monkey to man, probably in the Congo, where certain tribes do eat monkey meat. That happened by eating, not by sex.

Transmission is not always by sex, as we have pointed out earlier, and if it is by sex, it is not always by choice. People cannot always follow the Church’s teaching on this. Abstinence yest. Being faithful to one’s partner, yes. Condom, yes, as the last resort = ABC.

Ok-then follow the Church’s teachngs and dont eat monkey meat and you wont catch AIDS.

If Condom use is accpetable it would not have to relegated to a last resort. it is either moral or it is not. If it is not maral it is immoral regardelss of where you live, what your health status is and what time you live in.

 

[nerfherder]

I don’t think this has been mentioned yet…apologies if it has.

Promoting the use of condoms instead of abstinence serves only to spread these other diseases by giving people a sense that unlimited (with condom) sex has no consequences. Is this a good solution?

There is no proof that giving people a contraceptive device has the effect of increasing intercourse.

The ONLY answer is abstinence, period. Not “Abstinence, but if you don’t like that answer then use condoms.”

Note the ABC rule above. Students who have had more than two beers are not likely to make moral or ratonal judgements, for example. Women who depend on their husband’s income for survival are not likely to refuse sex (a cause for divorce or separation) or even to prevent the husband from committing incest with her children. She may be able to introduce a condom (C) where A and B are not possible.

There are dozens of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) other than HIV, many of which are life-threatening, and most others with serious consequences such as sterility.

Whether or not condoms prevent HIV, they do NOTHING to prevent the spread of these other STDs.

We do know that condom use, and circumcision both work to reduce HIV infection rates, the transmission of other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). People in poverty-stricken areas are more likely to have a venereal infection of some kind. With lesions, sores, open wounds in the genital region, it is much more likely that any STI, including HIV, will enter the body through that lesion in the vagina or penis. Condoms can reduce infection rates by at about 50 per cent.

 

[LJN21]

Fr K has indicated that there is one interpretation of current CC policy which creates an obligation to use a condom where it will save life, giving priority to that over procreation.

If you (or He) would study the teaching on human sexuality you would realize that is wrong of one very simple reason. I have already quoted the section in the Catechism of the Catholic Church where it states this. Sex has a two fold purpose, the first is procreation the second is unification of the husband and wife. These two thing are inseparable. If a person does something like using a condom that intentionally removes one of these things the act is gravely immoral and intrinsically evil.

 

[nerfherder]

Because it is against Natural Law and therefor immoral. Are you arguing that the constant and persistent teaching of the Church not the teaching of Christ himself? Or is this some arbitrary laws thought up to kill poor people by some guy in Rome? The Pope can’t just change Natural Law, it is a constant. Like the sun in the sky.

Have you been able to give us a rundown, however brief, on Natural Law yet - or at least your understanding of it?

You forget that while God (therefor Jesus) is all love he is also all JUSTICE. His justice is true justice. Sometimes we do not understand the fullness of it but we have things like Natural Law and the constant teaching of the Church to assure us we are on the right path.

This sounds as if you think a vengeful and angry God is like to judge those who are infected with HIV.

I’m really sorry your so wrapped up in these modernist ideas of relativism. I think we are trying to understand how to cope with a modern-day problem, a context which was not before experienced, within the framework and guidelines of a 2000 year old book. That is not easy, no?

 

[nerfherder]

Empower the women!

To leave there abusive relationships and give them safe haven. The church has never required wives to stay with abusive husbands and their lives are clearly at risk.

Again there is a proactive response to all of these things that doesn’t include condoms.

A woman who leaves her husband is likely to have no home, nor to have good to feed her children and herself, to clothe them or to send them to school. What then?

A great deal is being done to try to empower women especially in areas where tradition demands that they defer absolutely to their husbands or partners. This is the kind of behaviour change that is required globally, but which will take a very long time. Tradition is deeply ingrained: women are passive, men are aggressive. This applies to many regions of the world.

 

[nerfherder]

People can always come up with scenarios they believe absolutely allows one to sin. We see the same specious arguments in the abortion debates.

Let me ask you this. If your dr told you in no uncertain terms that having sex would kill you would that make it OK for your wife to have a lover? I mean we cant expect her to be celibate beucase of YOUR problem can we?

Christ was above all a compassionate healer, a comforter, a man of profound love.

I think what we are looking at here are examples of love interrupted because of a conflict of ideologies, a conflict of morals, a conflict of conscience promoted by understanding of Natureal Law or the scriptures or the policy of the Vatican or individual preferences on matters of sexuality. The problem is how to deal with the agony of lost love in a humane way, following Christ’s example.

 

[nerfherder]

Then you should do some honest study in to Natural Law. Separating the procreative element out of any form of sex in violation of Natural Law there for immoral.

Compassion never causes people to sin, nor could anything that cause sin be “Christian Compassion”

It is a common but incorrect assumption that HIV is somehow related to sin. We have lots of people who have HIV for lots of reasons. Can we take that into account, or else we just go back to condom use again, and that is not what we are after here.

 

[jack_hawkins]

BINGO!

This is pretty obvious, at least to some of us.

lot of things that seem “obvious” are in fact wrong
it’s interesting to see the fanatics who do know the realities and have not had to work with patients with HIV become armchair pundits and develop pet theories
those of us who have real expertise find it exasperating to see ignorance guiding the opinions of lay people

 

[nerfherder]

Natural Law as defined by Hannah Arendt are those morals like the Ten Commandments that we naturally know as moral beings. Notb using a condom doesn’t come into that.

I don’t see how using a condom to prevent a fatal illness can be against any natural law.

Can others help with their understanding of what Natural Law is? I asked fix, by have had no reply yet - or at least up to this post.

 

[nerfherder]

Here are two articles on the Vatican’s stance on HIV prevention. It is clear that there is some difficulty describing what we are dealing with: a doctrine, a policy, an official statement, something else? It would help to know the status of the papers in which the Vatican’s policy rests, and what authority they therefore have in terms of the informed conscience, and the practice of Catholic Christians. Would it make any difference?

“Soon the Vatican will issue a document about the use of condoms by persons who have grave diseases, starting with AIDS,” Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, who is in charge of the Vatican’s health care ministry, was quoted as saying in Sunday’s La Repubblica newspaper.

“My department is carefully studying it, along with scientists and theologians entrusted with drawing up a document about the subject that will soon be made known,” the Mexican cardinal said.

“It is Benedict XVI who asked us for a study on this particular aspect of using a condom by those afflicted with AIDS and by those with infectious diseases,” he said.

There was no official comment Monday from the Vatican. Lozano Barragan was unavailable for comment despite repeated attempts by The Associated Press to reach him. AP April 26 2006 pandagon.net/2006/04/25/vaticans-no-condom-policy-failing-in-aids-battle/

---

ROME May 23, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – An article in “La Civiltà Cattolica,” the quasi-official Vatican journal by the Jesuits of Rome has confirmed that there can be **no change in “policy” **on the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS or other sexually transmitted diseases, despite widespread rumours in the press to the contrary.

Rome journalist and Vatican commentator Sandro Magister says the article points the entire debate in a different direction, namely, towards the Christian teaching on chastity and the moral law regarding sexuality. The Vatican has maintained that encouraging the use of condoms gives a green light to immoral sexual behaviour and that only adherence to chaste behaviour will stop the spread of AIDS. May 2006 lifesite.net/ldn/2006/may/06052309.html

 

[nerfherder]

Pardon me but who cares what Hannah Arendt (philosopher) says? She wasn’t even Catholic (but Jewish).

You are talking about the Catholic Church’s stance on comdoms aren’t you?

We are trying to get a fix on a definition of Natural Law which is relatively objective. The religion or otherwise of the author is irrelevant here - we may learn much from others who are different, we may make a mix that makes sense. And I would suggest that it is better not to dismiss Hannah Arendt, one of the great intellects of our age.

 

[nerfherder]

I dont think the scenarios you mentioned have anythng to do with whether contraception is moral. They are akin to the canards thrown out in the abortion debates about rape and incest-one can always rationalize where it is ok to sin. Just beacues bad things happen to good people does not give one a license to sin…

The biggest mistake the Church could make is start determining morality dased upon the whims of the time. We have seen what this has done to the Episcopal Church, among others.

We are throwing the word sin about a lot here.

Is this sin: having intercourse? or
Is this sin: putting a sheath on one’s penis, or a female condom inside one’s vagina before intercourse?

Or a whole bunch of things?

Would we look at the issue of sin differently if the disease was not caused by a sexual act some of the time?

I am not Catholic yet, so I am not sure what kinds of instructions have to come down to me that tell me not to sin. Doctrine is specific, but there all the other policies, dogmas, liturgy, rituals, practice, Canon Law, and various Papal papers.

I was born with free will, but I seem to be losing a lot of it amongs the rules. What constitutes a document that institutes a behavioural rule?