Please see my previous reply on the efficacy of condoms wrt HIV and other STIs.I said in my post, maybe they do, maybe they don’t. For the sake of argument, let’s say that condoms prevent AIDS.
Now, does it make sense to tell people “Have sex with whomever you want whenever you want?” What about the other STD’s that will kill you? Oh, no problem, at least I didn’t die of AIDS.
Sheesh…
Thank you for these great insights.I thought religion was essentially about applying my faith in God to real life situations. In my mind, philosophical and theological discussions are only helpful if they can be applied to everyday life. Which is why I usually use examples in a discussion. What’s the use of a principle that has no practical application?
Under the principle of double-effect, I could see condoms being allowed for the purpose of protecting life rather than for contraception? I may be totally of track, but that’s the angle from which I look at it.
Indeed we are also taught that a woman who is raped has the right to defend herself against the attackers sperm (I’m paraphrasing here), so why not against a deadly disease?
I’ll be the first to admit I’m no theologian and may be looking at this all wrong, but what’s the harm in exploring, discussing and pondering problems? It’s really much easier to passively accept all teaching rather than to accept after having analyzed the issue critically, but then religion becomes all about rules rather than convictions.
If you feel this way, then what does your informed conscience tell you is right? What happens to free will in this case? Are you totally bound by a ‘policy’?BTW-I actually think a case could be made for the double effect exception. But thus far the Church does not see it that way.
Pretty much everything. Perhaps we are being put to the test by Him.And what does the morality of contraception have to do with Christs compaassion and healing ministry?
We need to be clear which sin we are talking about here.Does Christ’s healing ministry include encouraging sin?
Thank you for your sturdy clarity!That is true. On the other hand, the same physical act can have a different moral value depending on circumstances and the reason for its performance, and the Church clearly recognizes this.
Some women are prescribed the same hormone medications used as birth control pills for other, legitimate medical reasons. As has been stated several times on these boards in response to inquiries from women in that situation, the Church does not forbid normal marital relations in that instance, even though a contraceptive effect will necessarily occur, because the contraception is an unintended side effect of the use of the medication for a different reason.
It seems to me that the same reasoning could apply to the use of condoms by a married couple in which one partner is infected with HIV and the other is not. The condom is not being employed for its contraceptive effect (though that will necessarily occur) but for its ability to retard transmission of the virus. I agree that abstinence is probably still the wisest course of action in that circumstance, even using the 85% protection figure, but I’m not certain it’s the only moral course of action.
Usagi
The poster is right, nerf. Two wrongs do not make a right. The most effective prevention of HIV infection is sexual abstinence.Enough is enough; there has been too much deadly righteousness already.
I don’t think so. Jesus taught that it is what is inside of a person that makes him unclean, the evil thoughts, desires, and intentions. He taught that even to look upon a woman with lust was the same as adultery. He did heal the sick, and he did forgive adultery,but every time, he said “Go, and SIN NO MORE”.This statement, made earlier today by another poster, is profoundly distressing, and casts a shadow over the whole mission of Christ in favour of the teaching of this unique Catholic Church.
Immorality has nothing to do with one person making judgements over another. Immorality is a crime against God. It is a violation of His commandments. Yes, it often does affect people also, such as in the case of rampant sexual behaviors ( I can only speak about the high risk HIV population here in the STates where I am).In South Africa alone, more than 1500 people are infected each day. And no, this is not a matter of immorality, where one makes a judgement about the behaviour of another.
That is a tall order, until one’s life is touched by it. However, you are right, when one person suffers, we all suffer, as we are connected. On the other hand, how can I be responsible for other people’s behavior, and the suffering they bring upon themselves?Please read and learn; please feel somewhat responsible for the suffering of the wretched of the earth who are those who are most affected by this pandemic.
The test to do what? Tell others intrinsic evil is okay and then give them the instruments they need to commit this evil?Pretty much everything. Perhaps we are being put to the test by Him.
nerfherder;2222531:
Thank you. We are discussing whether in fact the end justifies the means in this case, and whether life takes precedence over death; whether condom use is actually immoral.quote]
That is my quote from another thread. I said it NOT out of malice against those who have HIV and or AIDS (for as I told you my brother has HIV), but did so because you advocated using condoms as a means to stop the spread of HIV. However, using immoral means (gravely at that) doesn’t justify the end. As I said earlier, advocating the use of codoms as a means to stop the spread of HIV. I also showed condoms don’t work since the HIV virus is microns smaller than the Latex condom and lets the virus pass through and they often tear (you do the math as to why). Allowing condoms to stop HIV is akin to allowing herion as a means to help people loose weight. Both are immoral, that may sound rude but it is not, just the truth.
Go Google UNAIDS for evidence that condoms are perfectly acceptable protection against HIV and other STIs.
We are perhaps trying to decide whether Christ set an example by his compassionate healing ministry to humanity.
AMEN!The poster is right, nerf. Two wrongs do not make a right. The most effective prevention of HIV infection is sexual abstinence.
I don’t think so. Jesus taught that it is what is inside of a person that makes him unclean, the evil thoughts, desires, and intentions. He taught that even to look upon a woman with lust was the same as adultery. He did heal the sick, and he did forgive adultery,but every time, he said “Go, and SIN NO MORE”.
Immorality has nothing to do with one person making judgements over another. Immorality is a crime against God. It is a violation of His commandments. Yes, it often does affect people also, such as in the case of rampant sexual behaviors ( I can only speak about the high risk HIV population here in the STates where I am).
That is a tall order, until one’s life is touched by it. However, you are right, when one person suffers, we all suffer, as we are connected. On the other hand, how can I be responsible for other people’s behavior, and the suffering they bring upon themselves?
I doubt even a learned Jesuit will sway the magesterium on the teachings about sexual relations. Especially with so many people studying the recently published Theology of the Body.
Thanks for your post.
Bishopite;2227361:
Maybe you don’t understand the policy that the end NEVER justifies the means.Thank you. We are discussing whether in fact the end justifies the means in this case, and whether life takes precedence over death; whether condom use is actually immoral.
Go Google UNAIDS for evidence that condoms are perfectly acceptable protection against HIV and other STIs.
We are perhaps trying to decide whether Christ set an example by his compassionate healing ministry to humanity.
Contraception=intrinsically evil. Instrinsically evil=never good…EVER. never good…EVER=NOT “perfectly acceptable”
I do believe Christ set an example by his compassion, but this is what he said “your sins are forgiven…go and sin no more” not “go and sin all you want because sex is goooooood!”
1 wrong of contraception + 1 possible wrong of spreading disease is NOT greater than 1 right of abstinence + 1 right of 99.999999999 percent chance of not spreading disease.
Guan, you have given yourself away by your last para: ‘how can I be responsible for other people’s behaviour and the suffering they bring upon themselves’?On the other hand, how can I be responsible for other people’s behavior, and the suffering they bring upon themselves? Thanks for your post.
I beg to differ on this point.Nobody deserves to get AIDS. Nobody. But until we adress the problem it will never get solved. The problem is not the Church.
OK, tell us why ‘the other does not work’. And what would you do as an alternative in the short-term. We know that behaviour change is required in the long term, but that may take decades and we could all be dead by then - given the spread of a completely drug-resistant, completely fatal form of TB that accompanies HIV. It is only spread through air: think of flying in a plane with someone who has this form of TB, and the microbe circulates through the oxygen system for 5-10 hours you are on the plane.This discussion goes round and round. Let me sum up:
There are two proposals for stemming the spread of AIDS. The first, espoused by the Church, works.
The other doesn’t.
And some would have the Church abandon its position and start advocating what doesn’t work.
Why do you ask? You can look it up in the dictionary if you are not sure.The test to do what? Tell others intrinsic evil is okay and then give them the instruments they need to commit this evil?
Do you know what intrinsic means?
I’m not questioning MY understanding of it. I’m questioning YOURS. Intrinsic means NEVER acceptable if intentional. Do you not understand this? This means…Contraceptive sex is wrong. Period. Forever. Never right. Period. i.e…You can never give out condoms for sex and be in line with Christ’s compassion and call to humility.Why do you ask? You can look it up in the dictionary if you are not sure.
Chronological snobbery. As I said, this referred to your dismissive statement that we are “no longer in the Middle Ages,” as if that made Aquinas irrelevant.Nonsense – you were accusing me of “timeism” or something like that.
It applies simply because it separates between morality and social policy. Your argument is premised on the assumption that we should never do anything that might in any way promote people’s immoral behavior. Clearly Augustine and Aquinas disagreed. Aquinas thought the government should maintain public brothels where unmarried laymen could go to get sex. Similarly, I am suggesting that it might be OK in a Christian country to make condoms widely available. The parallel is that in both cases we are allowing (not encouraging) people to do things that are immoral so that we can prevent more evil and destructive consequences (rape/seduction of innocent young women in the one case; the spread of a deadly disease in the other).And since you advanced the argument, the burden of proof is on you. You have to show that it applies – and you’ve failed.
You really don’t care about having a rational discussion, do you? You think the ends justify the means–it’s OK to obfuscate and misrepresent and sneer, because you are defending the teaching of Holy Mother Church.And did they go around handing out condoms?
You say they support your position – but offer no proof.
I have explained the principle, but you deliberately ignore my argument. I have explained the parallels–now respond or leave me alone.Because you think you can twist them to attack the Church’s teaching.
That is as insulting as it is silly. I respect Augustine and Aquinas, period. I do not always agree with them, but I always take them seriously. You will not do them that courtesy.
So you don’t really have any practical experience with this. Carol does. I disagree with her theological arguments all the time, but on this issue she deserves our respect as someone who is devoting her life to fighting a great evil.So far, none of my catechumens have AIDS.
That’s simply despicable. You are a disgrace to the Catholic Faith. You do not know how much she makes or what she does with it–she may be living in a grass hut eating nothing but beans for all you know (though she clearly has acess to the Internet, admittedly!). When you reach the point where you have to make uncharitable speculations about people’s personal lives in order to make your point, your point is not worth making.In other words, she makes a good living off it.
I am not saying that we have to agree with her. I am simply saying that she has to be taken seriously.
Does she do that?Not when she goes around leading people down the garden path of “safe sex means use a condom.”
So explain what is wrong with my “spin.”When you put your spin on it, it isn’t a “thinker from the past” who is speaking – it’s you.
So you take the past seriously when your Magisterium tells you to, and the rest of the time you can despise it like any modern liberal?It is relevant when the Church uses it in matters of Faith and Morals – not when you use it to claim the Church is wrong.
So much for Cardinal Newman and being “deep in history.” Clearly to be deep in history would be to cease being your kind of Catholic.
The argument is this:What argument is that?
As stated above (90, A1,2), law is framed as a rule or measure of human acts. Now a measure should be homogeneous with that which it measures, as stated in Metaph. x, text. 3,4, since different things are measured by different measures. Wherefore laws imposed on men should also be in keeping with their condition, for, as Isidore says (Etym. v, 21), law should be “possible both according to nature, and according to the customs of the country.” Now possibility or faculty of action is due to an interior habit or disposition: since the same thing is not possible to one who has not a virtuous habit, as is possible to one who has. Thus the same is not possible to a child as to a full-grown man: for which reason the law for children is not the same as for adults, since many things are permitted to children, which in an adult are punished by law or at any rate are open to blame. In like manner many things are permissible to men not perfect in virtue, which would be intolerable in a virtuous man.
Now human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like.
**. . . . **
Reply to Objection 2. The purpose of human law is to lead men to virtue, not suddenly, but gradually. Wherefore it does not lay upon the multitude of imperfect men the burdens of those who are already virtuous, viz. that they should abstain from all evil. Otherwise these imperfect ones, being unable to bear such precepts, would break out into yet greater evils: thus it is written (Psalm 30:33): “He that violently bloweth his nose, bringeth out blood”; and (Matthew 9:17) that if “new wine,” i.e. precepts of a perfect life, “is put into old bottles,” i.e. into imperfect men, “the bottles break, and the wine runneth out,” i.e. the precepts are despised, and those men, from contempt, break into evils worse still.
This does not mean that we tell people condoms are safe and OK. It simply means that if the people on the ground, who actually deal with this issue, think that making condoms available will result in fewer people dying in agony, then there is a general theological principle that may justify such a policy.Human government is derived from the Divine government, and should imitate it. Now although God is all-powerful and supremely good, nevertheless He allows certain evils to take place in the universe, which He might prevent, lest, without them, greater goods might be forfeited, or greater evils ensue. Accordingly in human government also, those who are in authority, rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain greater evils be incurred: thus Augustine says (De Ordine ii, 4): “If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust.”