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

[LogosSokratikos]

Originally Posted by LogosSokratikos
I understand that transmission of the flu is avoided by washing your hands and avoiding to touch others. Not very viable. There is also a 100% effective way to avoid food poisoning, but I don’t think you will find it palatable.

People don’t act upon “every passion”.
See it this way: People shouldn’t steal, but would you leave your door unlocked tomorrow when you leave home?
-or-
Should an alcoholic (one with a powerful drive to drink liquor) have bottles in his home? Is it prudent? With regards to sex drive, we all have our non-detachable thingies, so we cannot throw the bottle away. Sex would be an even worse scenario than the alcoholic’s case.

Furthermore, I’m seeing it from a medical (epidemiological) and bioethical point of view. Put yourself in the driver’s seat: If you were the secretary or minister of public health, would you confront the epidemic “expecting” people to behave like saints? Would that be ethical? How to be compassionate in a real world where humans are, on the whole, prone to sexual activity and inapt for indefinite abstention?

 

[Contarini]

How? It is furthering a bad act

How is it “furthering” the act any more than it was “furthering a bad act” for medieval governments to establish legal public brothels? If you have good reason to think that a lot of people are going to do something anyway, then preventing further harm is not “furthering” the initial immoral act.

and it predisposes one to continue acting in an immoral way. It sets up a mindset where one “feels free” to continue acting wrongly.

You are certainly quite an expert on the psychology of people from a completely different culture in circumstances very different from yours. . . . this is the sort of issue on which I’m going to trust Carol. She is dealing with this issue practically and has reason to know how this or that policy will affect people. You are simply speculating based on your ideological preconceptions.

When it comes to theology, I mostly disagree with her. But this is something she knows a lot more about than most of the rest of us.

Edwin

 

[LJN21]

People don’t act upon “every passion”.

Now we are getting some where. Just cause your want it doesnt mean you should/can have sex

See it this way: People shouldn’t steal, but would you leave your door unlocked tomorrow when you leave home?
-or-
Should an alcoholic (one with a powerful drive to drink liquor) have bottles in his home? Is it prudent? With regards to sex drive, we all have our non-detachable thingies, so we cannot throw the bottle away. Sex would be an even worse scenario than the alcoholic’s case.

Nope and someone addicted so sex should not be left in the position to act

Furthermore, I’m seeing it from a medical (epidemiological) and bioethical point of view. Put yourself in the driver’s seat: If you were the secretary or minister of public health, would you confront the epidemic “expecting” people to behave like saints? Would that be ethical? How to be compassionate in a real world where humans are, on the whole, prone to sexual activity and inapt for indefinite abstention?

Your seeing it from and worldly Non-Catholic point of view, which is neither the purpose or the end of this conversion.

 

[fix]

People don’t act upon “every passion”.
See it this way: People shouldn’t steal, but would you leave your door unlocked tomorrow when you leave home?
-or-
Should an alcoholic (one with a powerful drive to drink liquor) have bottles in his home? Is it prudent? With regards to sex drive, we all have our non-detachable thingies, so we cannot throw the bottle away. Sex would be an even worse scenario than the alcoholic’s case.

Furthermore, I’m seeing it from a medical (epidemiological) and bioethical point of view. Put yourself in the driver’s seat: If you were the secretary or minister of public health, would you confront the epidemic “expecting” people to behave like saints? Would that be ethical? How to be compassionate in a real world where humans are, on the whole, prone to sexual activity and inapt for indefinite abstention?

Doing what is right is not simply an ideal, but a necessity.

As for public health protocol in no way would I recommend condoms as they simply further bad behavior. Not only is “protection” a fantasy, but relying on them gives little more than mental comfort until the failure happens and it will.

 

[Contarini]

Everyone is call to sainthood you point is not valid.

But public policy cannot be predicated on that call to sainthood. Go back and read the Aquinas quotes I provided in post 215. He agrees with me on this one.

Edwin

 

[LogosSokratikos]

Sex is not a biological need.

:whacky:

 

[LJN21]

How is it “furthering” the act any more than it was “furthering a bad act” for medieval governments to establish legal public brothels? If you have good reason to think that a lot of people are going to do something anyway, then preventing further harm is not “furthering” the initial immoral act.

Whats that have to do with this?

In fact that sounds like it in fact proves the point. You can not achieve good intentions thought bad acts.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

You are certainly quite an expert on the psychology of people from a completely different culture in circumstances very different from yours. . . . this is the sort of issue on which I’m going to trust Carol. She is dealing with this issue practically and has reason to know how this or that policy will affect people. You are simply speculating based on your ideological preconceptions.

When it comes to theology, I mostly disagree with her. But this is something she knows a lot more about than most of the rest of us.

Edwin

Culture does not supercede morals. Whats immoral for us isn’t okay for them.

 

[fix]

How is it “furthering” the act any more than it was “furthering a bad act” for medieval governments to establish legal public brothels?

That something was done does not make it right.

If you have good reason to think that a lot of people are going to do something anyway, then preventing further harm is not “furthering” the initial immoral act.

Intrinsic evil may never be done. If I follow your reasoning then we ought to not educate about dwi because it is so common we ought to just make foam cars.

You are certainly quite an expert on the psychology of people from a completely different culture in circumstances very different from yours. . . . this is the sort of issue on which I’m going to trust Carol. She is dealing with this issue practically and has reason to know how this or that policy will affect people. You are simply speculating based on your ideological preconceptions.

One does not need to be a para expert to know truth from error or propaganda from wisdom. Do you think that culture is unteachable?

When it comes to theology, I mostly disagree with her. But this is something she knows a lot more about than most of the rest of us

Truth is truth. Why separate moral truth from public health? When else may we deny moral truth?

 

[LogosSokratikos]

Your seeing it from and worldly Non-Catholic point of view, which is neither the purpose or the end of this conversion.

Got it. Noted: Saving lives is a non-Catholic point of view.

Now we are getting some where. Just cause your want it doesnt mean you should/can have sex

We’re talking about the medic, not the population. The population of any given country will act, well, human. What I’m saying is, although you may want the population to be saints, you cannot expect them to. You would prefer to see them die if they can’t live up to your moral standards?

Nope and someone addicted so sex should not be left in the position to act

This is a good point. One would expect that sex addicts have a statistical high level of HIV+ity. While you can’t lock them up or put them in chastity belts, would you preach at them or hand them condoms? Which is the most probable choice someone prone to sexual activity will take?

 

[LJN21]

Got it. Noted: Saving lives is a non-Catholic point of view.

We’re talking about the medic, not the population. The population of any given country will act, well, human. What I’m saying is, although you may want the population to be saints, you cannot expect them to. You would prefer to see them die if they can’t live up to your moral standards?

This is a good point. One would expect that sex addicts have a statistical high level of HIV+ity. While you can’t lock them up or put them in chastity belts, would you preach at them or hand them condoms? Which is the most probable choice someone prone to sexual activity will take?

Well …

Yeah, maybe… Coming from a deity who’s first plan to wipe sin from earth was drown everyone, it seems coherent.

 

[Contarini]

Whats that have to do with this?

IN both cases you have society establishing a way in which sinful activity can be carried on in a less destructive manner than would otherwise be the case. And in the former case the policy was endorsed by both Augustine and Aquinas.

In fact that sounds like it in fact proves the point. You can not achieve good intentions thought bad acts.

Why do you think Aquinas was wrong? I am not saying that you have to agree with him–I know you don’t. But shouldn’t you at least pay attention to his argument and explain why you think it is so damnably wrong?

Culture does not supercede morals. Whats immoral for us isn’t okay for them.

That’s not the point. I would apply the same principle in our culture as well, just differently. This is not about saying that Africans are somehow less capable of living moral lives. They have their cultural blind spots, and so do we. They are in far more difficult circumstances, by and large, so they face a lot of pressures we don’t. That’s the only sense in which they need more indulgence than we do.

Nor have I ever said that sex outside of marriage is OK. (I have said that I’m open to the argument that it might be OK for married people to use condoms if their intention was to save life rather than to prevent conception. But I think this issue is getting in the way of the broader question, and I do not profess to know whether this argument will actually hold water. So we should probably put it aside for now and focus on the question of whether making condoms available to people who are already doing sinful acts is morally legitimate.)

Edwin

 

[LJN21]

But public policy cannot be predicated on that call to sainthood. Go back and read the Aquinas quotes I provided in post 215. He agrees with me on this one.

Edwin

I did and I’m sorry I don’t see that at all.

Nor do I see anywhere at all where it says you can use something Inherintly Evil to lead men to virtue, not suddenly, but gradually.

 

[vern_humphrey]

But public policy cannot be predicated on that call to sainthood. Go back and read the Aquinas quotes I provided in post 215. He agrees with me on this one.

Edwin

Has he deputized you as his authorized interpreter? Saint Thomas Aquinas has made you his spokesman?

 

[LJN21]

IN both cases you have society establishing a way in which sinful activity can be carried on in a less destructive manner than would otherwise be the case. And in the former case the policy was endorsed by both Augustine and Aquinas.

Why do you think Aquinas was wrong? I am not saying that you have to agree with him–I know you don’t. But shouldn’t you at least pay attention to his argument and explain why you think it is so damnably wrong?

That’s not the point. I would apply the same principle in our culture as well, just differently. This is not about saying that Africans are somehow less capable of living moral lives. They have their cultural blind spots, and so do we. They are in far more difficult circumstances, by and large, so they face a lot of pressures we don’t. That’s the only sense in which they need more indulgence than we do.

Nor have I ever said that sex outside of marriage is OK. (I have said that I’m open to the argument that it might be OK for married people to use condoms if their intention was to save life rather than to prevent conception. But I think this issue is getting in the way of the broader question, and I do not profess to know whether this argument will actually hold water. So we should probably put it aside for now and focus on the question of whether making condoms available to people who are already doing sinful acts is morally legitimate.)

Edwin

Sex is not intrinsically evil. Under the right conditions is its a very good even virtuous thing. Contraception is ALWAYS evil.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Why do you think Aquinas was wrong? I am not saying that you have to agree with him–I know you don’t. But shouldn’t you at least pay attention to his argument and explain why you think it is so damnably wrong?

It isn’t Aquinas that’s wrong, it’s you. You have improperly interpteted him.

You cannot do evil to establish good.

 

[Contarini]

That something was done does not make it right.

But you need to deal with the argument presented for it by Aquinas.

Intrinsic evil may never be done.

I agree. But there is an important difference between causing and permitting evil.

If I follow your reasoning then we ought to not educate about dwi because it is so common we ought to just make foam cars.

Not only don’t you follow my argument, but you aren’t even trying to. You’re just making stuff up. No one has suggested for a minute that we should not educate people about abstinence. But certainly we should enact policies to try to prevent fatalities in those cases where people do drive under the influence–same here.

Truth is truth. Why separate moral truth from public health? When else may we deny moral truth?

No one is denying moral truth. Go back and read the Aquinas texts. It’s amazing how unwilling everyone is to deal with one of the greatest thinkers in your tradition.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

It isn’t Aquinas that’s wrong, it’s you. You have improperly interpteted him.

Show me how I am interpreting him incorrectly. Is he not saying that not all evils should be forbidden as a matter of public policy? Isn’t he saying that we have to tolerate some immoral behavior because when dealing with the common good we have to deal with people where they are rather than expecting them all to be saints? If he isn’t saying that, what is he saying? If he is saying that, then how is what I am advocating any different?

You cannot do evil to establish good.

And I am not saying that we should. Is it evil to give people who are already sinning the means by which they may avoid aggravating their sins? How is killing another human being not an aggravation of the sin of illicit sex?

Edwin

 

[estesbob]

But you need to deal with the argument presented for it by Aquinas.

No one is denying moral truth. Go back and read the Aquinas texts. It’s amazing how unwilling everyone is to deal with one of the greatest thinkers in your tradition.

Edwin

The Church says condom use is imoral . Given that why would anyone care what Aquinas said(or your interperation of what Aquians said.) In the Catholic Church we dont sit around every day and take a vote on what we want to believe this week

 

[Contarini]

I did and I’m sorry I don’t see that at all.

Nor do I see anywhere at all where it says you can use something Inherintly Evil to lead men to virtue, not suddenly, but gradually.

Are you saying that prostitution is not inherently evil? Aquinas is saying that prostitution should be tolerated and even regulated, so that people will be prevented from committing sins such as rape and seduction, which both considered in themselves and with regard to the good of society are worse than simple fornication.

Clearly one of the problems in African society (not to pick on Africans as if they were generally less moral than we are, but we are talking about the African situation so I’m mentioning a particular African problem) is a lack of regard for the welfare of women. Telling a man who is having illicit sex anyway to use a condom is in fact leading him to virtue gradually. It is telling him to think about the good of his sexual partner rather than only his own selfish pleasure. It is telling him to practice some minimal level of self-control.

Edwin

 

[LogosSokratikos]

You cannot do evil to establish good.

You presuppose that it is an evil.

You can kill if it is in self defense. Killing is evil, unless you are defending yourself. Of course, that’s Augustine, not Christ, but who’s a Christian, except for telling others how to live their sex lives?

Unless you believe condoms are worse than killing.