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

[TheApologist]

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)?

So abstinence is the non-saving lives position and giving people an option that encourages sin and MIGHT stop disease saves lives. This is ridiculus.

 

[nerfherder]

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

You cannot do evil to establish good.

We keep saying the same thing. Point made? What can we do? Ignore the Church’s teaching? Apply principle of double effect? Die?

 

[estesbob]

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.

I have seen Aquinas used to justify justify homoexual behavior, contraception, abortion et al. The modus operendi is to take random quotes from his extensive writings and twist those to fit whatever their agenda is. I am suprised the bogus arguments about Aquinas and conscience havent fund their way into this thread. Aquinas’s writings have to be taken as a whole and as you have pointed brilliant he was but he does not speak for the Church.

 

[TheApologist]

Comments would be appreciated.

That’s why I repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly suggested we focus on the DOUBLE EFFECT. And why married condom use is still immoral when you want to stop disease transmission.

The Double Effect…the bad action cannot be the means to goodness. In other words. the contraceptive sex has to be a sideeffect…not the key. In this situation contraceptive sex is the key to a sideeffect of not spreading HIV. Or in the most it’s contraceptive AND contra-disease sex. The bad action can’t be on the same level or same action as the good action. The good action or intention has to come first. In other words, if stopping infected fluid from flowing wasn’t in and of itself bad(because semen is in that fluid), then it would be okay.

That’s why I say we have to examine the DOUBLE EFFECT. Every point of the argument comes down to that.

 

[vern_humphrey]

So abstinence is the non-saving lives position and giving people an option that encourages sin and MIGHT stop disease saves lives. This is ridiculus.

There’s no “might work” to condoms. Condoms can reduce the chances of contracting AIDS from a single sexual encounter, but encouraging the use of condoms also encourages more sexual encounters – and ultimately the condom fails.

That’s why I cited Botswana – it’s an excellent laboratory where if the Politically Correct solution was going to work, it would certainly work there. And they now have a 40% AIDS rate.

 

[TheApologist]

We keep saying the same thing. Point made? What can we do? Ignore the Church’s teaching? Apply principle of double effect? Die?

You’re implying that if HIV infected don’t use condoms they will die which is false. If they are infected, then they should be abstinent. That doesn’t kill anyone.

 

[davidv]

We keep saying the same thing. Point made?

That the ends don’t justify the means.

What can we do?

Pray for the grace to know and follow Gods way.

Ignore the Church’s teaching?

No

Apply principle of double effect?

As appropriate, considering the intrinsic nature of the act and the intent.

Die?

If necessary to save our soul.

 

[vern_humphrey]

We keep saying the same thing. Point made? What can we do? Ignore the Church’s teaching? Apply principle of double effect? Die?

Where does the Catholic Church say “encourage the use of condoms?” It doesn’t. The Church steadfastly opposes the use of condoms – nor can you show that encourging condom use has a positive impact on the AIDS epidemic – if it did, Botswana would be virtually AIDS-free.

 

[nerfherder]

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

Got something to back that up?

Yup. When I was doing fieldwork in B…, the Chief of Police stood up and in front of the President, gathered Ministers and foreign dignitaries and media people, 700 in all, announced that if he did not get sex at least twice a week, he would explode!!!

Well, I mean, where do you go from there?

And how willling is he going to be to stem the tide of inter-generational sex? Older men with money cruise the streets outside schools, looking for young girls who yearn for the Cs of Western culture - cash, cellphone, car, clothes etc - and are willing to exchange sex to get them.

 

[Bishopite]

[guanophore;2233458]

Right, but one needs to take into account that we are not talking here about a sacramental sexual act. In fact, the majority are probably not marital acts, and even of those, some are coerced. This is an application condoms outside the realm of marital chastity. It is already a grave mortal sin precisely BECAUSE it is not a reciprocal self giving of the spouses. It could be argued that the most self giving act would be to abstain from sexual relations all together if one were infected.

I already said abstinense is the only 100% effective application.
Any sexual act outside the bounds of marriage is objectively grave, it’s called fornication. Any spilling of the mans seed is also objectively grave.

Because the condoms are not being recommended for the purpose of contraception. They are recommended for the prevention of disease transmission. Their use under such circumstances mitigates the effects of the mortal sin that is committed by the act in which they are used.

But the problem with that proposition is that people don’t “need” to have sex, its not a neccesary for sustaining life, so abstinence is the only proper method of stopping the transmission.

Do you trust the UN over the Catholic church?

No,never.

 

[estesbob]

Yup. When I was doing fieldwork in B…, the Chief of Police stood up and in front of the President, gathered Ministers and foreign dignitaries and media people, 700 in all, announced that if he did not get sex at least twice a week, he would explode!!!

Well, I mean, where do you go from there?

And how willling is he going to be to stem the tide of inter-generational sex? Older men with money cruise the streets outside schools, looking for young girls who yearn for the Cs of Western culture - cash, cellphone, car, clothes etc - and are willing to exchange sex to get them.

And of course if not for the Church’s ban on condoms the Chief of police and those men cruising would use condoms, right?

 

[TheApologist]

Can we please look at the Double Effect. EVERYONE look at it. That is the only way ANYONE can get ANYWHERE in this argument.

This can only be accepted if it passes the Double Effect test. And to my knowledge it has NOT. So let’s look at the Double Effect PLEASE?!!?!

PLEASE?!

EDIT:
There are two things which this thread should look at…the practicality of condom use in reducing AIDS and the morality of it through the Double Effect(is it a valid use of the Double Effect).

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yup. When I was doing fieldwork in B…, the Chief of Police stood up and in front of the President, gathered Ministers and foreign dignitaries and media people, 700 in all, announced that if he did not get sex at least twice a week, he would explode!!!

Well, I mean, where do you go from there?
Get another Chief of Police.

And how willling is he going to be to stem the tide of inter-generational sex?

So he was born Chief of Police?

Around here, if the Chief of Police doesn’t do his job, we replace him. We just did that with both the Chief and the Sherriff, so I know it can be done.

Older men with money cruise the streets outside schools, looking for young girls who yearn for the Cs of Western culture - cash, cellphone, car, clothes etc - and are willing to exchange sex to get them.

So instead of attacking that behavior, you handed out condoms and told them “have at it.”

Tell us again how well that worked. Show us how Botswana is now virtually AIDS-free.

 

[Contarini]

It isn’t that difficult a question. “Conditionally encouraged” means encouraged, no matter how you slice it.

No, it’s not. Saying “if you do X, do Y” is not the same thing as saying “do Y,” and it is certainly not the same thing as saying “do X,” which you keep accusing me of (saying that illicit sex is OK).

And it’s nice turn of phrase, because what you are encouraging is not condoms (they are inanimate objects and can’t be encourage) but the behavior in which they are used.

No, it’s not. Nerfherder has described to you the behavior that is going on in the absence of condom use. People do not need condoms to persuade them to give in to their sexual passions. In cultures where women have little dignity, men do not need condoms to persuade them to treat women as mere sexual objects. On the contrary, I have argued that possibly in that context using a condom might help a man think a little more about the good of the woman and be less fixated on his own selfish pleasure.

In the U.S., this is less likely to be the case, because our particular problem at this point is a hedonistic egalitarianism that thinks sex has no negative consequences as long as both parties enjoy it.

Do I really have to explain at this point why the above is not cultural relativism? (Hint: I am not denying that the absolute good in the same in both cases–namely celibacy outside marriage and monogamy within it.)

Can you demonstrate the “possibly better” aspect? How is using a condom “possibly better” than abstinence?

This is another example of what I’ve been complaining about–you change what I said into the exact opposite. I said using a condom might be better than illicit, disease-carrying sex without a condom. I never said that it was better than abstinence. I have said the exact opposite over and over.I say one thing–you hear the opposite. . . . it’s very frustrating.

No – in fact, I often use your own words.

Well, at least you finally admitted that you never use my own words!

See, I just did to you what you do to me. I even used some of your words: “use” and “words” were in your sentence and in mine. Does that make what I said accurate?

Same with what you say about me., I say “better than giving someone a disease through sex” and you say “better than abstinence.” Is it OK just because you used the words “better than”?

Edwin

 

[nerfherder]

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.”

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.

I really don’t know why you keep perpetuating the incorrect notion that condoms do not protect. This is simply false. See my 2 previous postings on this thread from the UNAIDS agency. There is also a female condom that you probably have not seen yet, or have no evidence about.

Condoms make sex safer. What does not make sex safer is continuing risky and unprotected sex when you are on the drugs. We have been concerned about the outbreak of a new strain of the virus in Florida among gay men who are on the ARV drug programmes which improve their health immeasurably. So what happens? They carry on as before, because everything looks good. No protection. What happens? Even though this is a very fragile virus outside the body, it is a very smart virus within the body. So the virus mutates, sufficiently to create a new strain of HIV infection. So what happens? The Florida gay guys become newly infected a second time, with a new strain of the infection. Is there a drug that can help them this time? If they had used condoms would they have been able to avoid the risk and reinfection? Most certainly.

Part of the problem here is that there are so many ways in which this virus can (and has already) mutate, that preventing risk is essential.

And yes, as Fr K has said in his paper, abstaining is the safest bet. BUT as others here have said, if we cannot be saints, then give us the wherewithall to protect ourselves.

That is the essential core of the ABC advice: abstain; be faithful to one partner; if you are tempted to sin, then use a condom. A, B, C.

 

[TheApologist]

No, it’s not. Saying “if you do X, do Y” is not the same thing as saying “do Y,” and it is certainly not the same thing as saying “do X,” which you keep accusing me of (saying that illicit sex is OK).

You miss the point. Doing Y is, in principle, Doing X. For the Double Effect to work, Doing Y would have to give an unintentional fruit of X. In this situation Doing Y is Doing X. It wouldn’t be moral to do so.

 

[nerfherder]

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…

You may be a brainwashed peon, by your own admission dear, but what about other Catholics? What choices are they making, are they having to make assuming they are not brainwashed, and with to think about this with an informed conscience?

Or is an informed conscience one that is inextricably linked with being brainwashed.

This is not provocative. It is a deeply troubling thought.

 

[TheApologist]

You may be a brainwashed peon, by your own admission dear, but what about other Catholics? What choices are they making, are they having to make assuming they are not brainwashed, and with to think about this with an informed conscience?

Or is an informed conscience one that is inextricably linked with being brainwashed.

This is not provocative. It is a deeply troubling thought.

We have come to the informed decision(backed by the Church) that ALL condom use is unacceptable and that this situation does not make use of the Double Effect.

 

[nerfherder]

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.

Does this discussion have anything to do with whether one is a homosexual or a heterosexual?

Certainly, HIV is a disease of all people who have sex. It is not a disease confined to homosexuals.

I wonder if there are people out there who are really not sure about the biochemical and other facts about HIV and AIDS. It is not taught well in our schools or reported properly in our newspapers, except when everyone takes potshots at our President who has been humiliatingly stubborn in not tackling this epidemic with any sense of urgency.

Is there some way we can get a short blurb on the basics of HIV so that we all know what we are talking about?

 

[nerfherder]

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.

I think you are getting a bit frantic in your attempt to disagree. Why not just agree to disagree? Even I find your arguments somewhat less than convincing.