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

[mark_a]

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

No condom pre/extra marital sex is a tough sell, because the condom really isn’t what the argument is about. The real argument is sex outside of marriage.

 

[guanophore]

If people followed the Church’s teaching on sexualtiy there would be no AIDS.

I think that it is very possible that this statement is true. However, now that we have millions of people that have rejected or dsobeyed Christ, it is incumbent upon us to respond to the evil that has been created. Also, the consequences of this evil are often suffered by the innocent (those who have not disobeyed or rejected) and they need ministry also.

• But there is AIDS*. It is a reality of life. Below are some of the people from whom we are requiring abstinence:

*]a doctor who risks his/her life everyday to help the poorest of the poor and who is faced with saying to his/spouse that they must now sacrifice their intimate relationship because of a needle-injury

I believe the Church should rethink the prophylactic use of condoms, even if it’s just for a particular area of the world because it would be the compassionate thing to do.

Why? How does frustrating the openness to life solve this problem?

• Abstinence is not a one-person decision this requirement could mean a life of excruciating guilt for a devout Catholic married to an unwilling spouse.*

I don’t understand this at all. If a person makes the decision to abstain from sex out of reverence for God’s law, why would that person feel guilty that their spouse was unwilling? Or do you mean that such a person would endure the suffering ever day of knowing their decision was painful to their spouse?

* Sin and death came into the world because of Adam and Eve, so do we just leave people to die of the resultant diseases if we can do otherwise? No, we take measures to help, heal and ease their distress regardless.*

I think this is the mission of Christ to which nerfherder is trying to appeal.

• In some parts of the world, simply knowing whether one is infected may be a problem. Shouldn’t a woman be able to protect her life so that she can care for the little ones her husband’s going to leave behind when he succumbs to AIDS? Condoms may not be 100% effective, but there is enough data to suggest they help.*

Mitigating evil. Preserving life.

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

Actually, I think it was about a moral, ethical, and “christlike” response to the HIV\Aids problem. The issue of condoms always seems to emerge…

 

[TheApologist]

Can we first confirm that the Double Effect is in order? Can someone please post the Double Effect formula so that we can undeniably prove that this is in the Double Effect category?

 

[Contarini]

No condom pre/extra marital sex is a tough sell, because the condom really isn’t what the argument is about. The real argument is sex outside of marriage.

You have lost me. I think you have a much stronger case arguing that giving out condoms is intrinsically evil because condoms are intrinsically evil. Arguing that giving out condoms will in and of itself always encourage illicit sex, and that this effect outweighs the lives that might be saved because of condom use, is, I think, a “tough sell,” to use your words.

Edwin

 

[TheApologist]

You have lost me. I think you have a much stronger case arguing that giving out condoms is intrinsically evil because condoms are intrinsically evil. Arguing that giving out condoms will in and of itself always encourage illicit sex, and that this effect outweighs the lives that might be saved because of condom use, is, I think, a “tough sell,” to use your words.

Edwin

Illicit sex is sex which is A)not between a married couple B)not procreative c)not unitive.

In this case…the HIV infected(who knew they were infected) could either have sex without a condom…not procreative…with a condom…not procreative…or not have sex at all…GOOD!

Also condoms make sex purely mutual masterbation. The unitive and procreative factor is gone. This means sex is reduced to pleasure. So really…handing out condoms really does encourage illicit sex. And a lot of it.

 

[Contarini]

Illicit sex is sex which is A)not between a married couple B)not procreative c)not unitive.

In this case…the HIV infected(who knew they were infected) could either have sex without a condom…not procreative…with a condom…not procreative…or not have sex at all…GOOD!

Also condoms make sex purely mutual masterbation. The unitive and procreative factor is gone. This means sex is reduced to pleasure. So really…handing out condoms really does encourage illicit sex. And a lot of it.

The tag-teaming is getting confusing! Mark a says that the issue is sex outside of marriage. That is what I meant by “illicit sex.” I appreciate your correction, but I was addressing Mark’s point. I think your argument is a much sounder one. Not being a Catholic, I do not think that I’m in any position to address it, but I note that some Catholic theologians, such as Carol’s colleague, think that it can be overcome, and the key seems to be the question of intention.

Edwin

 

[LJN21]

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.

Someone else brought that up as a reason condom use might be acceptable.

The problem is contraception is intrinsically evil. There can be no good, no mitigation of anything through and intrinsically evil act.

Find one instance in the Bible or Church history where something intrinsically evil was condoned to mitigate anything.

 

[TheApologist]

The tag-teaming is getting confusing! Mark a says that the issue is sex outside of marriage. That is what I meant by “illicit sex.” I appreciate your correction, but I was addressing Mark’s point. I think your argument is a much sounder one. Not being a Catholic, I do not think that I’m in any position to address it, but I note that some Catholic theologians, such as Carol’s colleague, think that it can be overcome, and the key seems to be the question of intention.

Edwin

YES! That’s what I’m saying. Could someone PLEASE look up formula for the Double Effect so we could effectively discuss this?

 

[LJN21]

**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.

I looked breifly and didn’t really find anything and its late and I’m sleepy

As you said I’m pretty sure the evil has to be a passive side effect not part of the action itself.

The reason I believe this issue fails the test is because you take a direct action in using a condom and preforming an act that is, in an of its self, immoral and intrincily evil because of the contricptive.

 

[LJN21]

The Principle of Double Effect

trosch.org/phi/dbl-efft.htm

I did some more looking.

 

[LJN21]

DOUBLE EFFECT

A rule of conduct frequently used in moral theology to determine when a person may lawfully perform an action from which two effects will follow, one bad, and the other good.

Conditions. Theologians commonly teach that four conditions must be verified in order that a person may legitimately perform such an act.

The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.

The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may merely permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect, he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.

The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words, the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise, the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.

The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect. In forming this decision many factors must be weighed and compared, with care and prudence proportionate to the importance of the case. Thus, an effect that benefits or harms society generally has more weight than one that affects only an individual; an effect sure to occur deserves greater consideration than one that is only probable; an effect of a moral nature has greater importance than one that deals only with material things.

It fails the first test… the act is immoral.

 

[TheApologist]

The Principle of Double Effect

trosch.org/phi/dbl-efft.htm

I did some more looking.

Quoting the article…

** Conditions.** Theologians commonly teach that four conditions must be verified in order that a person may legitimately perform such an act.

1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may merely permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect, he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words, the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise, the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect. In forming this decision many factors must be weighed and compared, with care and prudence proportionate to the importance of the case. Thus, an effect that benefits or harms society generally has more weight than one that affects only an individual; an effect sure to occur deserves greater consideration than one that is only probable; an effect of a moral nature has greater importance than one that deals only with material things.

Okay…looking at this it seems that since in contraception…the “good effect” would be keeping those addicted to sex from spreading disease? and the “bad effect” would be contraception. It seems that the “bad effect” doesn’t follow, but is part of the action. It seems that the okay stopping of HIV would be right in line with the “bad effect” and so be wrong. If the “bad effect” somehow “followed” in casuality, then it would seem that it would be okay. But it seems that it is wrong because the intial action really has too causes that are at the same “time”…stopping HIV and stopping conception.

What do you think?

EDIT:
By the way, thanks to LJN21 for getting the info.

 

[LJN21]

Quoting the article…

Okay…looking at this it seems that since in contraception…the “good effect” would be keeping those addicted to sex from spreading disease? and the “bad effect” would be contraception. It seems that the “bad effect” doesn’t follow, but is part of the action. It seems that the okay stopping of HIV would be right in line with the “bad effect” and so be wrong. If the “bad effect” somehow “followed” in casuality, then it would seem that it would be okay. But it seems that it is wrong because the intial action really has too causes that are at the same “time”…stopping HIV and stopping conception.

What do you think?

EDIT:
By the way, thanks to LJN21 for getting the info.

Well I think that’s part of it too, but the action its self, sex without the procreative element, is immoral. So it fails the first test.

Are we saying the same thing?

I need sleep lol

 

[TheApologist]

Well I think that’s part of it too, but the action its self, sex without the procreative element, is immoral. So it fails the first test.

Are we saying the same thing?

I need sleep lol

I think the act #1 refers to is stopping HIV…or not. I can’t tell.

 

[nerfherder]

Can we first confirm that the Double Effect is in order? Can someone please post the Double Effect formula so that we can undeniably prove that this is in the Double Effect category?

From Fr K, SJThe sacred principle of the priority of life still stands. Out of this principle flows not merely the lawfulness of using a condom when there is risk of contracting or transmitting the HIV virus, but even the obligation to do so. Responsible sexuality requires that those engaging in sexual activity take the necessary effective measures to prevent the transmission of HIV and other infections. In the words of a leading Catholic ethicist, “this prevention is an urgent moral duty and not a noncommittal advice or recommendation.” Roger Burggreave, Professor of Moral Theology at the Catholic University of Leuven: “From Responsible to Meaningful Sexuality”, p. 305 in Catholic Ethicists on HIV/AIDS Prevention (eds. J. F. Keenan, S.J., and others; New York: Concilium Publications, 2000)

 

[nerfherder]

Can we first confirm that the Double Effect is in order? Can someone please post the Double Effect formula so that we can undeniably prove that this is in the Double Effect category?

**The Principle of Double Effect **generally states that, in cases where a contemplated action has both good effects and bad effects, the action is permissible only if it is not wrong in itself and if it does not require that one directly intend the evil result. It has many obvious applications to morally complex cases in which one cannot achieve a particular desired good result without also bringing about some clear evil. The principle of double effect, once largely confined to discussions by Catholic moral theologians, in recent years has figured prominently in the discussion of both ethical theory and applied ethics by a broad range of contemporary philosophers.

Formulation of the Principle. Classical formulations of the principle of double effect require that four conditions be met if the action in question is to be morally permissible: first, that the action contemplated be in itself either morally good or morally indifferent; second, that the bad result not be directly intended; third, that the good result not be a direct causal result of the bad result; and fourth, that the good result be “proportionate to” the bad result. Supporters of the principle argue that, in situations of “double effect” where all these conditions are met, the action under consideration is morally permissible despite the bad result.

Each of these conditions has, however, been a matter of considerable controversy. The first condition requires some criterion independent of an evaluation of consequences for determining the moral character of the proposed action. Moral philosophers who believe that the moral character of an action is exhaustively determined by the nature of its consequences will, of course, object to this requirement.

The second condition assumes that a sharp distinction can be drawn between directly intending a result and merely foreseeing it. This requirement has been the subject of much debate. Some philosophers argue that if an agent recognizes that a certain consequence will inevitably follow from a contemplated action, then in performing the action the agent must be intending the consequence. Others argue, less strongly, that defenders of double effect have failed to delineate a practicable criterion for marking off the intended from the merely foreseen. Defenders of the principle typically respond by pointing to the implicit recognition of the moral significance of this distinction in the moral practices of ordinary persons.

The third condition writes into the principle of double effect the so-called Pauline principle, “One should never do evil so that good may come.” Again, philosophers who reject the view that actions can have a moral character independent of their consequences will find this condition unacceptable.

The fourth condition, by bringing in the notion of proportionality, has seemed to many philosophers to undercut the absolutism presupposed by the first condition. Although the first three conditions have a decidedly anticonsequentialist character, the fourth may appear to embrace consequentialist reasoning. Defenders of the principle typically attempt to accommodate the consequentialist character of the fourth condition while ensuring that it does not render the more complex features of the principle irrelevant.

From Encyclopedia of Ethics

 

[nerfherder]

So how come Botswana has seen such a jump in AIDS?

It’s because comdoms don’t prevent AIDS if:

• You get drunk or take drugs and don’t use them.
• You tear them.
• You don’t put them on right
• You aren’t careful

You construct a strawman when you ask us to accept perfect performance. People engaging in illicit sex often do so under circumstance where condoms fail.

This information is incorrect.

I did my fieldwork in Botswana on HIV and AIDS recently. Botswana has one of the highest HIV/AIDS rates in the world, 40 per cent overall, more than that in some areas, less in others. It has a national progamme of free drug disribution to all those who are HIV+. Many women have stopped marrying so that they can make choices for abstinence. In the rural areas, old traditions of female deference and male dominance die hard. It is also difficult, in the desert and in outlying cattle posts, for people who are HIV+ to walk 40km or more to get drugs: which must be taken every day at exactly the same time for the rest of one’s life, combined with proper nutritional intake.

There are any number of reasons why HIV prevalence is so high in Botswana, and none of them have anything to do with this comment on the use of protection.

Perhaps you could let us have your source?

Would anyone else like to comment on the high rates of HIV prevalence in the southern Africa region, in countries like Botswana, South Africa, Lesotho, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Malawi and Namibia? That is, many member nations of the Southern African Development Community (SADC).

 

[nerfherder]

You have lost me. I think you have a much stronger case arguing that giving out condoms is intrinsically evil because condoms are intrinsically evil. Arguing that giving out condoms will in and of itself always encourage illicit sex, and that this effect outweighs the lives that might be saved because of condom use, is, I think, a “tough sell,” to use your words.

Edwin

What makes condoms intrinsically evil?

 

[nerfherder]

Illicit sex is sex which is A)not between a married couple B)not procreative c)not unitive.

In this case…the HIV infected(who knew they were infected) could either have sex without a condom…not procreative…with a condom…not procreative…or not have sex at all…GOOD!

Also condoms make sex purely mutual masterbation. The unitive and procreative factor is gone. This means sex is reduced to pleasure. So really…handing out condoms really does encourage illicit sex. And a lot of it.

From Fr K, SJ

**This [the protection of life] would be the principle governing every act of sexual intercourse where there is risk of HIV infection. **It does not matter whether one is talking about fornication where neither party is married or about adultery where the intercourse is with somebody other than one’s lawful spouse.

It does not make any difference whether one is talking about casual sex or commercial sex, about heterosexual or homosexual activity. The situation does not change according to the age of those involved; neither does it change according to whether it is a man or boy who initiates the sex or whether it is a girl or woman. Even in an unlawful union,** the protection of life is the over-arching principle, and hence arises the obligation to protect oneself or one’s partner against life-threatening HIV infection.**

Some may fear that the application of this teaching would lead to promiscuity, that it would serve as an encouragement to young people to engage freely in sex since it provides them with a way of protecting themselves against HIV infection. It does not have to be so.

The guiding principle for a young person (indeed for every person) is to develop a mature sexuality that can realise its ultimate expression in a loving, sensitive and permanent relationship of union with another.

Abstinence, deliberately chosen, freely striven for, supports this development. That is why it should inspire the life and behaviour of an unmarried person. In doing so, it also provides infallible protection against HIV infection. Hence, for an unmarried person, abstinence arising from a healthy sexuality is the first line of defence against HIV/AIDS.

 

[nerfherder]

SemperUbiSubUbi:
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Let me stress at the outset that this discussion is not principally - although inevitably it focuses on - condoms. Nor can an assumption be made that use of a condom is inherently evil. ‘The Bible forbids evil’: please state categorically what you believe to be the inherent evil in either use of a condom or the condom itself. Does this apply only to Catholics, or to humanity?

First, the “mission of Christ”. Christ did indeed cure the sick, but it was not His mission. He did so so that we would know “that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” (Matt 9:6) He came to give us eternal life (John 3:16) and to testify to the Truth (John 18:37).

Some of us believe that, in his dual nature, this was a principal purpose of Christ’s mission. By his example of compassion and healing, he exemplified what he expects us to do. Being a Christian is not all about MY eternal salvation; it is what I can do for the wretched of the earth, for The Other.

To say that AIDS/HIV is an “abominable plague” is quite true! But to say that we have not seen the like “for centuries” is disingenuous and alarmist. The human race is no stranger, even in modern times, to plague.

I agree that there have been plagues before, including the Spanish Flu epidemic 1918, and the series of Black Death (Buboic plague) that haunted the period around the fourteenth century in particular (see Plagues and Peoples for example).

The number of people who have died in the past 30 years is certainly higher that the World Health Organisation figure you quote, and the number infected also. Infection rates (the number of people who are newly infected) are not coming down as quickly as anticipated, if at all in the case of some age groups.

One does not wish to be alarmist: yes this has happened before, it will happen again. But the fact that this number of people have died, are dying and will die, is a cause for extreme concern, no? And the fact that after 30 years of the pandemic manifesting itself we are not much further along the road of knowing how to staunch its devastation is in fact alarming. Even more alarming is the increase in the prevalence of opportunistic infections that accompany HIV and AIDS: hepatitis, TB, malaria, pneumonia. We have seen a great rise in TB - it is assumed that most people who have HIV also have TB. It is really alarming to find that new forms of TB that are moderately or totally drug resistant, that is 100 per cent fatal, have been identified, particularly among HIV+ individuals.

The case is not just one of HIV infection and prevalence, but of those diseases that accompany it, and kill faster.

The entirety of this arguement rests on the assumption that condom use is morally neutral, and it is merely the purpose to the use which ascribes a negative moral value to it, which does not seem to be the position of the Church; and that the preservation of life is the ultimate, or near ultimate, good. I said I would not argue for or against the first, and I reject the second… Just as it would be gravely wrong to preserve one life at the cost of another, it would be gravely wrong to attempt to preserve one life at the cost of a soul. After all, “what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and suffers the loss of his own soul…” (Matt 16:26)

For those who are not Catholic, the condom is certainly morally neutral. Many Catholics are presumably choosing to regard it as morally neutral as well, if evidence is correct.

The attempt to ‘preserve on life at the cost of another, to preserve one life at the cost of a soul’ needs comment. We are in the midst of a very complex moral issue, clearly. It is not just one life or ‘soul’ (sometimes victim, sometimes sinner) that is affected by this disease. A husband dies, the wife often dies soon after. He has infected her. When she dies, there is no one to look after the children: most of the grannies in extended family systems who might have looked after numerous children of their offspring dead of HIV, are very old and many have died. As the next generation has been harvested by this plague there are few to model these children, to socialise them, to teach them life skills, to teach them morality and save them from amorality, to send them to church or school, to make sure that they are sufficiently clothed and fed.

Where do we go from here?