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

[jack_hawkins]

I think the basic problem is that idealists think that giving a person an all or nothing choice makes him/her more likely to choose all (whereas it may well make him/her choose nothing - whereas the pragmatists would rather the person choose half than nothing)
it is better to give people the option of a lesser evil
that is in no way condoning the lesser evil, just mitigating the effect of sin
if people cannot choose a lesser evil, but only a greater evil or perfection then greater evil will often result

 

[LJN21]

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

Its not prostitution, its the act of having sex that is not inherently evil. The basic problem is he didn’t take in to account the Unitive (they didn’t have a full/any understanding about it at the time) aspect of sex which I think (and I’m looking this up) make prostitution inherently evil.

Aquinas isn’t exactly spot on in many of this ideas about human sexuality. Like everything else his works have to be read and viewed thought the entire teaching of the Church. Our faith isn’t based on Solo Aquinica

I think I know where he was coming form on the brothel thing. I’m working on a cited explanation.

Actually that might be a good topic for another conversation.

 

[fix]

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

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

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.

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

My limited understanding on Aquinas and vice is he thought not all could be repressed via the civil law if it meant greater harm to society. How that gets parsed in each culture may by a form of empiricism. As I said before do you think those folks are unteachable?

Also, not having a civil law proscribing every single immoral act is vastly different from having the Church support passing out condoms.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Show me how I am interpreting him incorrectly.

Whoa, there! Now you’re blowing smoke.

It’s up to you to show your argument is correct.

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?

He is not saying it is proper to lie to people, to lead them down the garden path, telling them that condoms are “safe sex” and that they are immune to HIV and can continue highly dangerous behavior if they use latex.

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?

But that’s not what you’re doing. You’re telling people they can have “safe sex” and we both know that’s wrong.

How is killing another human being not an aggravation of the sin of illicit sex?

It is indeed an aggravation – and you’re the one doing the aggravating by telling them they don’t need to change their behavior if they use condoms.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Sex is not a biological need

that could not be more wrong

 

[fix]

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.

Follow my analogy. DWI is a big problem. No one says to keep doing it, but do it safer.

 

[LJN21]

I think the basic problem is that idealists think that giving a person an all or nothing choice makes him/her more likely to choose all (whereas it may well make him/her choose nothing - whereas the pragmatists would rather the person choose half than nothing)
it is better to give people the option of a lesser evil
that is in no way condoning the lesser evil, just mitigating the effect of sin
if people cannot choose a lesser evil, but only a greater evil or perfection then greater evil will often result

There is where you are wrong.

It isn’t the lessor evil, it is, in fact the greater evil.

Disease=/= intrinsictly evil

Contraception=intrinsicly evil

Now you may go on to calling this stupid or my moronic for believing what the Church has constantly taught.

 

[vern_humphrey]

that could not be more wrong

So people die if they don’t have sex? They can’t live without it?

Got something to back that up?

 

[LJN21]

that could not be more wrong

You die if you don’t eat.

You die if you don’t drink.

You die if you don’t sleep.

These are biological needs.

Are you going to die if you don’t have sex?

 

[Contarini]

Follow my analogy. DWI is a big problem. No one says to keep doing it, but do it safer.

Right. And no one is saying “keep doing it” in this case either.

I think there are good arguments to be made against the OP’s position. But it is extraordinarily hard even to get to the good arguments on either side, because people keep repeating red herrings like this.

This is not about whether sex outside of marriage is good. It is not about whether using condoms is good. It is about whether making condoms available (and even encouraging them in a conditional sense, just as young men in medieval society were conditionally encouraged to go to brothels rather than attack or seduce chaste women) may be morally legitimate.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

My limited understanding on Aquinas and vice is he thought not all could be repressed via the civil law if it meant greater harm to society. How that gets parsed in each culture may by a form of empiricism. As I said before do you think those folks are unteachable?

No. That is not the issue.

Also, not having a civil law proscribing every single immoral act is vastly different from having the Church support passing out condoms.

The Church supported legalized prostitution, in the sense of assenting to the civil government’s policy of tolerating and regulating it.

Edwin

 

[fix]

Right. And no one is saying “keep doing it” in this case either.

I think there are good arguments to be made against the OP’s position. But it is extraordinarily hard even to get to the good arguments on either side, because people keep repeating red herrings like this.

This is not about whether sex outside of marriage is good. It is not about whether using condoms is good. It is about whether making condoms available (and even encouraging them in a conditional sense, just as young men in medieval society were conditionally encouraged to go to brothels rather than attack or seduce chaste women) may be morally legitimate.

Edwin

Catholic teaching says a lesser evil may be tolerated at times, but evil may never be intended to achieve a greater good.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Right. And no one is saying “keep doing it” in this case either.

When you start handing out condoms, that’s exactly what you’re doing. And you’re decieving the people who take them into thinking that now they are protected and can have “safe sex.”

This is not about whether sex outside of marriage is good. It is not about whether using condoms is good. It is about whether making condoms available (and even encouraging them in a conditional sense, just as young men in medieval society were conditionally encouraged to go to brothels rather than attack or seduce chaste women) may be morally legitimate.

Edwin

No, it’s about lying to people – telling them condoms will protect them, so they go on and have more sex, and ultimately contract and spread an invariably fatal disease.

 

[Contarini]

The Church says condom use is imoral . Given that why would anyone care what Aquinas said(or your interperation of what Aquians said.)

I guess all that “deep in history” stuff is just propaganda.

Not that I actually thought any differently with regard to most folks on this forum. Clearly there is a sense in which moderate Protestants take tradition much more seriously than you guys do, because we don’t divide it up into the bits that are Approved and the bits we can ignore. We look at it all in its historical context, even if we wind up disagreeing with it.

The point of the Aquinas citation is that something can be immoral but still tolerated (and even conditionally encouraged) as a matter of public policy.

Edwin

 

[LJN21]

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.

Yup I do, presuppose that it is evil. Actually I don’t, that crazy religion I follow does and I’m just a brainwashed peon blindly following along.

You know that religion that is…

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

 

[Contarini]

Whoa, there! Now you’re blowing smoke.

It’s up to you to show your argument is correct.

I’ve made the argument repeatedly, vern, and you simply ignore it.

He is not saying it is proper to lie to people, to lead them down the garden path, telling them that condoms are “safe sex” and that they are immune to HIV and can continue highly dangerous behavior if they use latex.

But that’s not what you’re doing. You’re telling people they can have “safe sex” and we both know that’s wrong.

You are simply lying at this point. I have said in post after post that this is not my position. You are bearing false witness against me. Truth is not defended by malicious lying.

Edwin

 

[goofyjim]

Not to get off topic, but I always did have something against this idea that homosexuality is a worse sin than adultery or fornication. I find them all equally offensive.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I guess all that “deep in history” stuff is just propaganda.

Not that I actually thought any differently with regard to most folks on this forum. Clearly there is a sense in which moderate Protestants take tradition much more seriously than you guys do, because we don’t divide it up into the bits that are Approved and the bits we can ignore. We look at it all in its historical context, even if we wind up disagreeing with it.

The point of the Aquinas citation is that something can be immoral but still tolerated (and even conditionally encouraged) as a matter of public policy.

Edwin

A few points you might consider:

1. Sacred Tradition comes from the Apostles, not from Aquinas.
2. You aren’t qualified to interpret Aquinas or Sacred Tradition (especially since you don’t know that it is.)
3. Your attempt to draw an anology between what Aquinas said and your position is a failure.

 

[jack_hawkins]

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

wake up people - this is the message that the world in general is getting!
I am amazed that people can seriously believe that wearing a condom is worse than getting HIV
why don’t people use their common sense (and sense of compassion)?

 

[Contarini]

Catholic teaching says a lesser evil may be tolerated at times, but evil may never be intended to achieve a greater good.

And no one is saying that we should intend the evil, any more than the architects who built the brothels, the city officials who regulated them and accepted taxes from them, the churches and monasteries that accepted financial contributions from them, were intending the evil of prostitution.

I have said repeatedly that we should not in any way encourage people to have illicit sex–we should promote abstinence but perhaps make condoms available for those who refuse to abstain, in order to preserve human life.

You know–the “culture of life” and all that.

The weird thing is that I don’t actually feel very strongly about this issue. I simply see a lot of very bad arguments flying around, and I’d like to see the merits of the question debated seriously.

Edwin