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

[Dale_M]

Folks, I have read through fifteen pages of this conversation. Chances are good, if you are reading this, that you have read through all of it too. (You have my condolences). Unfortunately, we seem to be hearing from the same voices, over and over, and we don’t seem to be gaining any new insights.

I think we are in two camps because we emphasize different things in our spirituality. One side emphasizes Law, sin, right and wrong. The other side emphasizes Love, caring, right and wrong.

Both sides are encompassed in the Church. Both sides have their value. Both sides need one another as necessary correctives to avoid extremes.

I wonder if there is any real point in continuing this conversation since we seem to be either talking past one another or re-hashing the same points over and over.

 

[seekerz]

Your kidding me right?

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.

That isn’t even close to what I was talking about if you followed the trend of the conversation.

I was simply comparing the two products (often made of the same material and used to reduce HIV transmission), hoping that our latex experts here could tell whether their stated ineffectiveness of condoms also extended to gloves and whether then it would be also immoral to risk one’s lives to the integrity of said products. This question does not even touch on contraception at all.

Incidentally, why is “Using a condom to say… cover a vaginal ultrasound wand, perfectly okay” when said product has been pronounced by certain experts on this thread to be ineffective in reducing HIV transmission over time? After doing thousands of procedures using these ‘ineffective’ products, examiners might end up causing transmission of HIV from one person to another.

 

[Contarini]

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.

No, things do not work that way. Some things are preferable to others. Your simplistic view of morals is not traditional or orthodox. Yes, an intrinsic evil can never be legitimately willed, period. The argument here is that the thing being willed is the preservation of life, and not the prevention of conception by artificial means. That is an argument that has to be dealt with, and no one here is dealing with it. You keep repeating “it’s contrary to Church teaching” and then cite Humanae Vitae, which is not talking about this situation at all.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

When talking about spreading a fatal disease “very effective” is just as bad as not very effective. .

That makes absolutely no sense. There is some risk in everything, first of all. And in the second, no one has suggested that condom use is preferable to abstinence.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

For starters please show me any place where either of them teaches natural death is evil.

ST 1.19.9 speaks of a lion killing a stag as an evil, which is willed only accidentally because nothing evil can be willed in itself. I grant you that for Aquinas moral evils are on a whole different level from natural evils. God wills natural evils (such as the punishment of the wicked) accidentally, but never wills sin in any way. However, no one is suggesting that we should will sin. We are suggesting that if people are going to sin anyway, it is legitimate to try to persuade them not to commit the sin of homicide on top of it.

Also please show me an example of where either of them taught that you could actively engage in something intrinsically evil with a good outcome.

No one is suggesting that. We are not talking about whether it is right to use condoms. We are talking about whether it is right to make condoms available and encourage people who are going to have sex anyway to use condoms while doing so.

Wheres the second line of defense of their imortal soul

People engaging in illicit sex are sinning anyway. The argument is that married people may not be sinning at all, if their intention is not to prevent conception but to prevent death. And even if that’s not true, surely handing on a deadly disease to your spouse is a sin if you know you are doing it. So again, they would be sinning anyway. We are talking about preventing homicide, which surely is bad for the immortal soul!

or the one for the soul of the person that told them condom use was okay.

No one is suggesting that, except possibly in the case of married people whose intention is not to prevent conception. However, the argument does not rest on that.

If you knew that eating sugar would kill you, would you still eat the sugar?

Quite possibly. People do it all the time. Maybe you live in some world of Kantian robots who always do what practical reason dictates. I don’t live in that world.

Edwin

 

[mark_a]

A man who fools around may infect his wife, who is the primary care-giver for her children. If she dies, they may die with her, or live a life of extreme disadvantage, particularly as socialisation is concerned.

Wow.

So should the Church tell a man “if you’re gonna fool around on your wife, for goodness sake use a condom”?

Any spouse who fools around (against Church teaching by the way) ain’t gonna think twice about “protecting” oneself while doing it!!!

Or is hell a little hotter for adulterers who use condoms?

 

[gerryanneco]

unfortunately condoms are NOT dependable. i call my condom son Tony!!! if they don’t prevent pregnancy how can they prevent disease!!!

 

[Contarini]

Wow.

So should the Church tell a man “if you’re gonna fool around on your wife, for goodness sake use a condom”?

Any spouse who fools around (against Church teaching by the way) ain’t gonna think twice about “protecting” oneself while doing it!!!

What makes you think this? This seems like a completely irrational opinion to me.

And yes, adding murder to adultery does make your punishment in hell worse.

Edwin

 

[seekerz]

unfortunately condoms are NOT dependable. i call my condom son Tony!!! if they don’t prevent pregnancy how can they prevent disease!!!

Nobody said condoms were 100% effective, but I guess you must be another of those latex experts we’ve heard so much from on this thread.

How’s this: Doctors/hospitals sometimes make mistakes that may cost patients their lives therefore, using your logic, one shouldn’t go to hospitals or see doctors if one desires to live!

 

[seekerz]

Any spouse who fools around (against Church teaching by the way) ain’t gonna think twice about “protecting” oneself while doing it!!!

If what you say is true (and that may well be), all the more reason that philanderer’s* wife* should be able to avail herself of whatever protection a condom offers!

 

[TheApologist]

**I think all of our arguments boil down to this: Does this situation of HIV qualify for the Double Effect to use condoms?

Could someone post the necessaries for the Double Effect?
**

As I’ve said before…I believe that the evil has to be a sad side affect of one action and NOT included in the actual action(such as removing women’s infected tube if a baby is implanted in it. Killing the baby to save the tube is immoral, but removing the tube with a sad side effect of the death of the baby is okay because the death is not intended or the primary route to health for the mother.)
I think this situation is immoral because performing contraceptive sex is a primary route to continuing the marriage act.

It’s not the same as one acceptable action with a following side effect bringing a good action. I think this would be one acceptable MOTIVE using one unacceptable action leading to the good action of no disease spreading. Despite (in my opinion) this not passing the Double Effect test…there’s still a chance for disease spreading. And you seriously have to listen to vern when he says promoting condoms promotes more frequent sex. That small chance for disease spreading is multiplied each extra instance of sex.

Other than the practical concern that the disease is still spreadable(to a reasonable percentage),** we should probably look closer at the Double Effect to see if I’m correct in my reasoning…Could someone get the formula for Double Effect?
**

Let’s just look at the facts.

 

[mark_a]

What makes you think this? This seems like a completely irrational opinion to me.

And yes, adding murder to adultery does make your punishment in hell worse.

Edwin

Irrational or not, its not my opinion.

People that I know that fool around say they always use a condom. Always. They also teach their sons to use a condom. Not sue what they teach their daughters. And in case you haven’t heard, some women keep male condoms handy just in case.

Its shocking, I know.

 

[guanophore]

Now, those who are raped and abused DO NOT HAVE THE OPTION OF ABSTINENCE. In the long term we can attempt to change attitudes (likely to take generations), but what are we, as their brothers and sisters in Christ, going to do to help protect them from AIDS in the here and now?

You are right, of course, but after many years of working with all kinds of rapists and child molesters, I have not yet met one that cared to stop and put on a condom!

Yes, we should do whatever we can to protect them. We should focus on the violence from where this behavior originates.

I’m suggesting three things.

Firstly, and most importantly, a simplistic analysis of the problems is lacking in responsibility.

Well said. I think the trite and simplistic responses are what drive nerfherder crazy. I think I could say the same of Jack Hawkins.

Secondly, non-consensual sex does not necessarily mean physical violence.  So, for example, if a woman knows that her husband is infected, but he is threatening to throw her out of the home if she doesn't consent to sex, then yes, he might consent to using a condom.  But it's not just about condom use - it's about open communication about the realities of the illness.  The less it's surrounded by shame and secrecy, the more empowered and educated women get, the more information and support is available, the harder it will be for HIV to spread.  I consider a child being orphaned by AIDS a greater evil than that child's father using a condom to prevent her mother becoming infected by it.

I think this is the best arguement. The church teaches that we should always work for the lesser of two evils. Recognizing that we live in a fallen world, that we need to be light, and salt. Toward that end, we are enjoined to support all those that are not working against good.

38 John said to him, “Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. 40 For he that is not against us is for us. 41 For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ, will by no means lose his reward.” Mark 9:38-41

They are the hands and face of Christ to many of those they work with.

May they be covered with feathers!

Ps 91:4
4 he will cover you with his pinions,
and under his wings you will find refuge;"

 

[iamrefreshed]

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.

Here, read to your hearts content. You may not like it. It refers to the same writings posted here numerous times which you have chosen to refute.

members.aol.com/revising/law.html

 

[mark_a]

If what you say is true (and that may well be), all the more reason that philanderer’s* wife* should be able to avail herself of whatever protection a condom offers!

Yea, like the philanderer is gonna fess up so his wife can make a decision about condom use.

If I were the philanderer, I would lie like heck to my wife because I would be “protecting” myself whilst philandering.

Using a condom is like washing your feet with your socks on and I would not use one with “old dependable”.

Its awful, selfish, and maybe crude, but that’s how I (and plenty of others) see it.

 

[seekerz]

Yea, like the philanderer is gonna fess up so his wife can make a decision about condom use.

If I were the philanderer, I would lie like heck to my wife because I would be “protecting” myself whilst philandering.

Using a condom is like washing your feet with your socks on and I would not use one with “old dependable”.

Its awful, selfish, and maybe crude, but that’s how I (and plenty of others) see it.

And with this response, I rest my case…

 

[guanophore]

I don’t want to make the thread purely about condom use, at Nerfherder’s request. It’s a wider issue.

But. If you must. I have a couple of friends who’ve worked in Southern African countries. If Catholic workers, who are some of the key people providing education and health care in these countries, had permission and support for teaching and educating about use of condoms (as part of a much wider programme), then they would be able to have more of an impact. I know some nuns and priests do simply give married women condoms when they know their circumstances, but it’s a difficult move for them. They are caught in a quandry - to do what they believe to be morally right and receive Rome’s wrath, or to keep with Rome’s teachings and see preventable suffering getting worse.

While the abstinence solution is to be promoted - changing attitudes and behaviour there is likely to be much more long term - and require a complete restructuring of society, including the place of women and of children. In the shorter term, changing attitudes about condom is likely to be less difficult.

I do the same thing (distribute condoms) to persons involved in licentiousness. I am not promoting that behavior, but I know that even those persons claiming to be Catholic are uneducated in their faith, and living in mortal sin. I think it is my responsibility to mitigate the effects of sin. I will counsel and encourage abstinence, and I will give out condoms and encourage them to share the benefits of abstinence with their friends, and if their friends are not willing to accept it, then give them condoms.

It is a form of situational ethic. It is like voting for politicians. Sometimes there is only a choice between bad, and worse, so you choose the lesser evil. I don’t think that means the church should change it’s teaching.

Sex in marriage that isn’t open to life is immoral and sinful. Using a condom prevent the spread of HIV also prevents life which is immoral in all cases. You can not ever get a moral out come form an immoral act. I know that sounds rabidly uncaring and I assure you that isn’t my intent. My point is the spiritual ramifications of braking natural law is far worse than the effects of any disease. We tend to focus far to much on the exterior horror of HIV and forget than the focus of this life is not the “quality of life” but the after life.

C’mon! We are not talking about a sacramental marriage here?! A man who threatens to throw the woman out on the street unless she submits to sex can in NO WAY be construed as loving! This is coercion, and no one who is being coerced can be expected to have an attitude or disposition of being “open to life”. A person in this situation is a victim of another’s mortal sin. Using a condom in the face of such condemnation of the marital relation will function only to mitigate evil.

It is true that the focus of our choices should be the after life, but that does not mean that the choices we make should not apply to the present life as well. Jesus came to bring the Kingdom in the here and now, not just for the there and then. It is moral to mitigate evil.

 

[Contarini]

Irrational or not, its not my opinion.

People that I know that fool around say they always use a condom. Always. They also teach their sons to use a condom. Not sue what they teach their daughters. And in case you haven’t heard, some women keep male condoms handy just in case.

Its shocking, I know.

Sorry, I misunderstood your earlier post. I thought you were saying that adulterers wouldn’t use a condom. You are saying that they would. The point is that in some parts of the world condoms may be hard to come by, or men may not want to use them for reasons that have nothing to do with morality. In those circumstances, arguably persuading a man to use a condom is in no way “choosing an evil.” It is persuading someone who is already doing something wrong to refrain from doing a further wrong (passing on a deadly disease).

Edwin

 

[mark_a]

And with this response, I rest my case…

And I’ll say one more time, it is not the Church’s responsibility to teach people how to sin. There are plenty of people and there is plenty of information everywhere that tells the big lie:

that there is a safe way to sin.

 

[guanophore]

The Church has always held that cotraception was immoral and a grevious sin. Always. It was affirmed again in 1968. Up until 1932 , BTW, there had never been a Christian Faith that approved contraception.

The OP was not involving contraception whatsoever, but a method of reducing the transmission of disease, which is a fundamental good. The result that the method is also contraceptive is part of double effect, and is not part of the original intention at all. It puts me in mind of a discussion on another thread about treatment for an ectopic pregnancy, that necessarily results in the loss of the embryo, though that is not the desire.

What you call “adapting to the times” is nothing more than preaching situation ethics-that is morality is based on your view the current situation. You want the Church to overturn 2,000 years of teachings out of a misguided compassion for people in a certain region at a certain point in time. The Church can not do that. Either condom use is right or it is wrong. It cant be “right” in one place and “wrong” in another place or time.

Moral behavior is most certainly reflective of the current situation. THere are moral absolutes, but the way one applies those (ethics) is contingent upon a number of variables. It is necessary, at times, to choose the lesser of two evils. The Moral Imperitive does not change, but the manner in which it is applied may.

Taking care of the sick helping to make sure they die with the sacraments and with human dignity would be far more caring and loving that condoning people to live in sin.

This is exactly correct, of course. It is also what is being proposed by the OP. The suggestion is that it is better for himan dignity, more caring, and more loving if people are encouraged to mitigate the transmission of disease.

It never seems to occur to some that there are certain laws that just can’t be broken with out sin. It is against Natural Law to take the procreative element out of sex - marital or otherwise. When you do, even to “save a life” you have perverted the act and made it an abomination. Again you can’t make an immoral action right because it meets the ends you like.

No, but you can mitigate the evil outcomes of the immoral act by reducing the negative consequences of the immoral act. Jesus taught that there are greater and lesser sins:

John 19:11
he who delivered me to you has the greater sin."

Both are sins, but some have worse consequences than others. We have a responsibility, in the face of greater sins being committed, to do all that we can to make them “lesser sins”.

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.

Would that this were true! Yes, for the moral perpetrators, this principle does apply. But we also have to think about those that get infected without having a choice. An example was given earlier about coerced sex. One also needs to consider health care workers that have been infected, and children who are born infected. This disease affects many who are innocent of mortal sin.