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

[Contarini]

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 did not deny that prostitution was inherently evil. This is a straw man.

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

That isn’t my point. I’m just trying to get people to take the argument seriously, instead of assuming automatically that if something is immoral then it must be completely and strenuously opposed as a matter of social policy.

Edwin

 

[vern_humphrey]

wake up people - this is the message that the world in general is getting!

If that’s true, it’s because people who claim to be Catholic are actively fostering that wrong impression.

I am amazed that people can seriously believe that wearing a condom is worse than getting HIV

I’m amazed that people seriously believe that wearing a condom will prevent HIV. It may reduce the risk in a single sex act, but over the long run, condoms will fail.

And when we lie and say condoms are “safe sex” we encourage people to continue with dangerous sexual practices that must eventually lead to them contracting and passing on a deadly disease.

why don’t people use their common sense (and sense of compassion)?

I dunno, Jack. Why do people have to lie and tell others that condoms are “safe sex?”

 

[vern_humphrey]

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

Making a false argument over and over again does not improve it’s validity.
QUOTE=Contarini;2235059]
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.

Those who tout the use of condoms as an acceptable alternative to abstinence among the at-risk population are the ones who are being untruthful.

And that’s what your whole point is – that somehow condoms make things “better” in regard to AIDS.

And your use of terms like “lying” and “malicious lying” show that you have abandoned rational debate and resorted to spiteful emotion – and forfeited the argument.

 

[LJN21]

Aquinas did not deny that prostitution was inherently evil. This is a straw man.

Actually I’m pretty sure he didn’t think it was. You happen to know where he said it was?

Form my understanding, he thought that all there was is the procreative element to sex. There was no or very little thought of the unitive element. So to have sex with a prostitute in his mind is wrong (unless your using a condom) but not inherently evil. There is a quote somewhere, I’m trying to find it, about it being better to have sex with a prostitute being than to masturbate because at least procreation is still there.

That isn’t my point. I’m just trying to get people to take the argument seriously, instead of assuming automatically that if something is immoral then it must be completely and strenuously opposed as a matter of social policy.

Edwin

I am Thats why I’m trying to cite this.

Aquinas also thought it was unlawful to have sex while a woman was menstruating because children conceived during menstruation were deformed

 

[Contarini]

Those who tout the use of condoms as an acceptable alternative to abstinence among the at-risk population

But I have said over and over that I am not doing that. Using the word “lying” gets us nowhere, I recognize, so I’m sorry for the inflammatory language. But I don’t know how to describe it when I say “I am not saying X” and you continually repeat “you are saying X.” I’m sure you are not intending to lie,. You just appear to be incapable of actually hearing what I am saying. You have already decided that you know what I think and you aren’t letting what I actually say get in the way of that preconception!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Actually I’m pretty sure he didn’t think it was. You happen to know where he said it was?

Form my understanding, he thought that all there was is the procreative element to sex. There was no or very little thought of the unitive element. So to have sex with a prostitute in his mind is wrong (unless your using a condom) but not inherently evil. There is a quote somewhere, I’m trying to find it, about it being better to have sex with a prostitute being than to masturbate because at least procreation is still there.

The article ranking the six forms of impurity would be the right place I think–it’s in the discussion of the vice of lust.

Perhaps I don’t get the difference between “wrong” and “inherently evil.” It isn’t contrary to nature, true. BTW, I presume that you meant that having sex with a prostitute was not (in Aquinas’s terms) inherently evil unless you were using a condom. As you worded it, it sounded as if he said using a condom would make it OK! I think that your “inherently evil” is what Aquinas would call “contrary to nature.” Using a condom would be contrary to nature. Having sex with a prostitute would not be. But It would still be inherently evil–i.e., in no circumstances could it possibly be morally legitimate.

For Aquinas, the evil in lust is in the inordinate use of the sexual appetite. And I think you’re right that “ordinate” for Aquinas meant primarily if not exclusively “ordered toward the good of procreation.”

A greater emphasis on the unitive good is indeed one important reason why I disagree with Aquinas on the question of prostitution. I am citing him for the general principle that society should in some cases tolerate (and even in some very conditional sense encourage) one kind of immoral behavior in order to prevent a worse evil.

If we were arguing about the possible legitimacy of sex between married people using a condom in order to preserve life, I would use the unitive aspect of sex to argue that (in contrast to Aquinas’s view) sexual intercourse using a condom may be preferable to denying one another the “marriage debt” altogether. But I think it’s best to shelve that argument for now and focus on the question of the relationship between morality and social policy.

I am

I know you are. Thanks!

Edwin

 

[vern_humphrey]

But I have said over and over that I am not doing that. Using the word “lying” gets us nowhere, I recognize, so I’m sorry for the inflammatory language. But I don’t know how to describe it when I say “I am not saying X” and you continually repeat “you are saying X.” I’m sure you are not intending to lie,. You just appear to be incapable of actually hearing what I am saying. You have already decided that you know what I think and you aren’t letting what I actually say get in the way of that preconception!

Edwin

I’ll make you a deal. If you will tell me, “I do not and have not in this thread supported the use of condoms for people at risk for AIDS” I will offer you my humble apology.

But who says condoms promote “safe sex” says that which is not true. Encouraging the use of condoms in lieu of abstinence decieves people into thinking that somehow their behavior no longer puts them at risk.

 

[LJN21]

The article ranking the six forms of impurity would be the right place I think–it’s in the discussion of the vice of lust.

Perhaps I don’t get the difference between “wrong” and “inherently evil.” It isn’t contrary to nature, true. BTW, I presume that you meant that having sex with a prostitute was not (in Aquinas’s terms) inherently evil unless you were using a condom. As you worded it, it sounded as if he said using a condom would make it OK! I think that your “inherently evil” is what Aquinas would call “contrary to nature.” Using a condom would be contrary to nature. Having sex with a prostitute would not be. But It would still be inherently evil–i.e., in no circumstances could it possibly be morally legitimate.

For Aquinas, the evil in lust is in the inordinate use of the sexual appetite. And I think you’re right that “ordinate” for Aquinas meant primarily if not exclusively “ordered toward the good of procreation.”

A greater emphasis on the unitive good is indeed one important reason why I disagree with Aquinas on the question of prostitution. I am citing him for the general principle that society should in some cases tolerate (and even in some very conditional sense encourage) one kind of immoral behavior in order to prevent a worse evil.

If we were arguing about the possible legitimacy of sex between married people using a condom in order to preserve life, I would use the unitive aspect of sex to argue that (in contrast to Aquinas’s view) sexual intercourse using a condom may be preferable to denying one another the “marriage debt” altogether. But I think it’s best to shelve that argument for now and focus on the question of the relationship between morality and social policy.

I know you are. Thanks!

Edwin

Right

Something contrary to natural law is intrinsically evil. There are things tho that while not contrary to natural law are still sinful but in a lessor way. Like stealing or profanity.

But

I don’t think it can be equated in this scenario because we know that there are two inseparable parts to sex. Aquinas didn’t know this, so he thought that prostitution was a true lessor of two evils. If he had the knowledge of human sexuality that we have now would he come to the same conclusion?

I’m of the opinion that anything done to actively separate the two elements is intrinsically evil. You can not have the procreative with out the unitive. So you can’t have sex with anyone other than your spouse cause it brakes the unitive and you can’t have sex with contraception cause it brakes the procreative. Both equally pervert the act and are inherently evil.

 

[estesbob]

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

You twist Aquinas’s words to suit your arguments and then tell us you take tradition more seriously that Catholics do? Am I to take you inrepertation of tradition that condoms are OK and ignore the Church’s interperation.?

 

[LJN21]

You twist Aquinas’s words to suit your arguments and then tell us you take tradition more seriously that Catholics do? Am I to take you inrepertation of tradition that condoms are OK and ignore the Church’s interperation.?

I’m not sure he did. Granted I haven’t found the quote where it says make them brothels but I do have an basic idea of his veiws on the subject.

Remember while Aquinas is a doctor of the church he is not infallible.

 

[Contarini]

I’ll make you a deal. If you will tell me, “I do not and have not in this thread supported the use of condoms for people at risk for AIDS” I will offer you my humble apology.

I have said that it should perhaps be tolerated and conditionally encouraged (i.e., if people are going to have sex even though abstinence would be better. . . ). I have not supported it in an absolute sense, no.

But who says condoms promote “safe sex” says that which is not true. Encouraging the use of condoms in lieu of abstinence decieves people into thinking that somehow their behavior no longer puts them at risk.

Right. And that is where you have persistently misrepresented me. I am absolutely opposed to any policy of promoting condoms in lieu of abstinence, and I have said so explicitly in several posts directed to you. You seem unwilling even to recognize the distinction I’m making between condoms as good in themselves and condoms as (possibly) better than sexual intercourse without condoms in certain circumstances. You can disagree with the distinction, but so far you refuse even to admit that I’m making it. It’s like Protestants not only rejecting the dulia/latria distinction but refusing to admit that it exists even in the minds of Catholics.
You are confusing the idea-as-it-exists-in-my-mind with the-idea-as-you-believe-it-to-be-in-reality. In a debate it is the job of each of us to bring the first of those (the other person’s view of the case) into alignment with the latter (what we believe to be the case). But we can only do that if we first recognize what the other person (however mistakenly) believes to be true in the first place. Otherwise you’re just arguing with a fantasy of your own invention.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I’m not sure he did. Granted I haven’t found the quote where it says make them brothels

As with a discussion of 4 Lateran’s teaching on heretics which I had on another thread, I’m interpreting the abstract teaching in the light of what we know was actually happening in the 13th century. My point is that prostitution was an accepted part of medieval society, and Aquinas evidently approved of this. I agree that given the greater emphasis modern Catholics put on the unitive function, this was probably a mistake; and by the same token it could be argued that condoms (while still less than ideal) are not the absolute evil Aquinas thought they were (he doesn’t speak explicitly of condoms, of course, but he was familiar with barrier methods in general and I’m pretty sure he thought they were against nature). However, that is not really the point I’m trying to make on this thread.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

You twist Aquinas’s words to suit your arguments and then tell us you take tradition more seriously that Catholics do? Am I to take you inrepertation of tradition that condoms are OK and ignore the Church’s interperation.?

Note my last statement;

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.

It should be self-evident that I am not quoting Aquinas to argue that condoms are OK. I am quoting Aquinas to make a point about the relationship between morality and public policy. The purpose of the latter is to promote good order and the common good, so that people can pursue virtue without too many hindrances. Given the circumstances Carol and others have described in Africa (the increasing prevalence of the sexual abuse of young girls, for instance, because only they are considered “safe”), I think this is a relevant principle to consider. Just as medieval society established *relatively *“safe” places for young men to have sex without disrupting society, so it could be argued that modern societies should establish *relatively *“safe” ways of engaging in sexual intercourse so that fewer people will die in agony and so that the innocence of young girls will be protected. Obviously this must be accompanied by the insistence that only abstinence is truly “safe.”

Edwin

 

[LJN21]

My point is that prostitution was an accepted part of medieval society, and Aquinas evidently approved of this.

I’m really having a hard time finding and even believe where that Aquinas approved of it. Would you mind showing me?

There are a lot of accepted things in our society that sometimes look like the church might look like it aproves that it in fact does not.

 

[nerfherder]

Again that it is the liberal interpretation of a priest on this matter and NOT the teaching of the church.

You can’t ever teach charity through sin. His assumption is false.

Have you read these two paras. Where is there any mention of sin? This is a note on compassion and respect.

 

[LJN21]

Have you read these two paras. Where is there any mention of sin? This is a note on compassion and respect.

Have you read the actull teaching of the church on this matter?

 

[LJN21]

Note my last statement;

It should be self-evident that I am not quoting Aquinas to argue that condoms are OK. I am quoting Aquinas to make a point about the relationship between morality and public policy. The purpose of the latter is to promote good order and the common good, so that people can pursue virtue without too many hindrances. Given the circumstances Carol and others have described in Africa (the increasing prevalence of the sexual abuse of young girls, for instance, because only they are considered “safe”), I think this is a relevant principle to consider. Just as medieval society established *relatively *“safe” places for young men to have sex without disrupting society, so it could be argued that modern societies should establish *relatively *“safe” ways of engaging in sexual intercourse so that fewer people will die in agony and so that the innocence of young girls will be protected. Obviously this must be accompanied by the insistence that only abstinence is truly “safe.”

Edwin

Just assuming for a second he did approve of brothels as an lesser of two evils. Its still important to know if Aquinas though that it was worth divorcing the Unitive form the procreative or if the just didn’t know about the Unitive.

If he thought it was worth divorcing then you have an argument.

If he did not know that the unitive was and equal part of the act I dont’ see how this applies.

 

[nerfherder]

So tell us what’s happening in Africa – take Botswana for your example. Did Botswana reject condoms? What is the AIDS situation in Botswana today?

I have asked another poster to give us details on Botswana: my fieldwork was done there about four years ago, from urban Gaborone (the capital) to very rural Herero areas in the Okavango Delta. At that time the prevalence rate in this country of about 1.8 milliion people was almost 40 per cent. Cattle posts had either been abandoned, or were used to keep those dying of AIDS in secret. Teachers were reluctant to marry (66 per cent were unmarried) because only in that way could female teachers avoid HIV prevalent husbands. Many teachers wished to move into urban areas to be near hospitals: in rural areas inhabitants might be further away from a clinic than 40 km.

But Botswana is different from any other country in Africa. Its per capita income is the highest in Africa (higher than South Africa) and it has come out of the ‘less developed countries’ category of the development agencies of the United Nations. It has therefore been able to mount a national ARV (anti-retroviral drugs) programme to cover, as much as possible, every infected person in Botswana, and to prevent children becoming infected at birth (approximately 600,000 people for life, with new infections coming along daily). The problem for Botswana, which has been assisted by American and UK strategists has been to develop a strategic plan which allows Ministry of Health, in conjunction with World Health Organisation and United Nations Development Programme to distribute drugs thoroughly.

Please Google if you would like the most recent prevalence and infection rates for Botswana, and the regional differences within the country.

And no, Botswana did not reject condoms: they were distributed in a variety of ways, some for free, some for a small price. They are being used as one tool among many for those who wish to use them. Consortia of churches of different denominations in some areas (like Maun in the north) were able to supplement provisions by the Ministry of Health, including condoms, with a free counselling and testing service.

 

[nerfherder]

Why is this important? Because following the naturall moral law is love. We follow the law because we love God and we know God intends what is good for us. **
**

Is that the only criterion for determining what is suitable action in terms of Natural Law?

Does this have anything to do with the Principle of Double Effect, and if so how?

 

[nerfherder]

From Fr K, SJ, Lusaka Zambia

**How does this teaching relate to actions which might prevent the transmission of HIV, specifically to the use of condoms? Is it true to say, as Newsweek did in its edition of 17th July 2000, that Roman Catholicism forbids the use of condoms? We have to think very clearly here. It will help to distinguish two situations: the first within marriage, with sex between a married couple; the second outside of marriage.

The explicit teaching of the Church is that it is unlawful for a married couple to use a condom when they engage in sex, if their straightforward intention is to exclude the possibility of conception.

Special circumstances arise, however, in the case of what is called a discordant couple, that is, where one married person is infected with HIV and the spouse is not. If such a couple engaged in unprotected sex (that is, without the use of a condom), the uninfected partner would risk becoming infected. But if, when having sex, such a couple uses a condom in order to prevent the transmission of HIV to the one who is not infected, their action is directed to protecting an existing life. It is not directed to preventing the commencement of a new life. They come together in union as man and wife, in sorrow because the life of one of them is likely to be foreshortened by HIV, but in mutual support and strengthening of their union by taking care not to put the life of the uninfected partner at risk.**