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

[goofyjim]

The Church does not now and never did say AIDS was Gods punishment yet it is the Catholic Chruch that is singled out for blame for the spread of AIDS. Remember all the AIDS activists calling John Paul II a mass murderer when he died?

I am not saying that the Church endorsed this rhetoric but there are those such as the now late Jerry Falwell who believed and preached thus. Brother, I do not blame the Church for the spread of AIDS but I also do not solely blame the homosexuals. It is an unfortunate disease that started in Africa and gained ground just about the same time as the sexual revolution. While it may have spread among homosexuals in this country it wqas primarily a heterosexual disease in Africa.

I am simply saying the Church could have done something to stop the false preachers who di say it was God’s punishment. This would have been a sign of a little more compassion on those who are already suffering the consequences of their own actions.

 

[CCM08]

Let’s deal with a number of realities that the “condoms are refractive armor for your penis” crowd always seems to ignore.

HIV is an RNA virus, it is many times smaller than the weave of a condom and as such there is no proof that condoms do anything to prevent the spread of AIDS. For the sake of argument let’s assume that they could do something. The fact is condoms are sheets of quickly produced extremely thin vulcanized rubber. As consumer studies clearly sure all brands of condoms have a failure rate of 100 percent. That means if you regularly use condoms over the period of one year you will have at least one, and usually a much larger number, that fail. In terms of preventing pregnacy it’s not such a major issue, the condom breakage would have to line up with a fertile period among other factors. However, HIV infection certainly has no such restrictions. Anyone that advocates anything but abstaining for HIV infected individuals is telling people to play Russian roulette with their spouses life. I can imagine nothing more selfish than the notion that sexual gratification is worth risking someone’s life.

The sexual behavior of people in Africa is certainly a major factor in the spread of AIDS there. Trying to sweep that fact under the rug is dishonesty of the worst kind. The only long term solution to arresting the spread of AIDS anywhere in the world is changing people’s sexual behaviors.

 

[goofyjim]

Let’s deal with a number of realities that the “condoms are refractive armor for your penis” crowd always seems to ignore.

HIV is an RNA virus, it is many times smaller than the weave of a condom and as such there is no proof that condoms do anything to prevent the spread of AIDS. For the sake of argument let’s assume that they could do something. The fact is condoms are sheets of quickly produced extremely thin vulcanized rubber. As consumer studies clearly sure all brands of condoms have a failure rate of 100 percent. That means if you regularly use condoms over the period of one year you will have at least one, and usually a much larger number, that fail. In terms of preventing pregnacy it’s not such a major issue, the condom breakage would have to line up with a fertile period among other factors. However, HIV infection certainly has no such restrictions. Anyone that advocates anything but abstaining for HIV infected individuals is telling people to play Russian roulette with their spouses life. I can imagine nothing more selfish than the notion that sexual gratification is worth risking someone’s life.

The sexual behavior of people in Africa is certainly a major factor in the spread of AIDS there. Trying to sweep that fact under the rug is dishonesty of the worst kind. The only long term solution to arresting the spread of AIDS anywhere in the world is changing people’s sexual behaviors.

Good point which is what I try to explain to people but they usually don’t listen.

 

[CCM08]

I am simply saying the Church could have done something to stop the false preachers who di say it was God’s punishment. This would have been a sign of a little more compassion on those who are already suffering the consequences of their own actions.

How, pray tell, is the Catholic Church going to stop protestants like Jerry Falwell from saying anything? I’m sure a warning from the Catholic Church would have stopped Falwell and like minded people because what the Bishop of Rome thinks is a huge issue for these people.

 

[goofyjim]

I don’t really see why those who insist on sinning to begin with need Church approval for condom use. If they figure they have the right to their behavior why don’t they conclude they have the right to use a condom?

 

[goofyjim]

How, pray tell, is the Catholic Church going to stop protestants like Jerry Falwell from saying anything? I’m sure a warning from the Catholic Church would have stopped Falwell and like minded people because what the Bishop of Rome thinks is a huge issue for these people.

So they can’t actually stop them. They can publish statements contrary to theirs. A fair and balanced approach might be to issue encyclicals stating that condom use can not be approved but one must not blame the homosexual community as the sole cause of the epidemic.

 

[Dale_M]

I don’t really see why those who insist on sinning to begin with need Church approval for condom use.

Obviously it is for situations where either the husband or the wife was infected and the other one not.

Less obviously, and I can’t cite statistics on it, is that people are inconsistent in their morality. People may follow some teachings of the Church but ignore others. The wide-spread use of artificial birth control by U.S. Catholics is well known.

 

[Dale_M]

there is no proof that condoms do anything to prevent the spread of AIDS.

No, lots of studies have shown that condoms are effective in reducing the transmission of HIV. When used consistently, condoms reduce exposure to HIV by 85%.
hhs.gov/news/press/2001pres/20010720.html

As consumer studies clearly sure all brands of condoms have a failure rate of 100 percent.

Is it possible to provide a link to that study?

In terms of preventing pregnacy it’s not such a major issue, the condom breakage would have to line up with a fertile period among other factors. However, HIV infection certainly has no such restrictions.

Not every exposure to HIV results in a new infection. Reducing exposures really does lower the risk of transmission.

The only long term solution to arresting the spread of AIDS anywhere in the world is changing people’s sexual behaviors.

I think just about everyone who has posted in this thread agrees with you.

 

[nerfherder]

Let’s deal with a number of realities that the “condoms are refractive armor for your penis” crowd always seems to ignore.

HIV is an RNA virus, it is many times smaller than the weave of a condom and as such there is no proof that condoms do anything to prevent the spread of AIDS. For the sake of argument let’s assume that they could do something. The fact is condoms are sheets of quickly produced extremely thin vulcanized rubber. As consumer studies clearly sure all brands of condoms have a failure rate of 100 percent. That means if you regularly use condoms over the period of one year you will have at least one, and usually a much larger number, that fail. In terms of preventing pregnacy it’s not such a major issue, the condom breakage would have to line up with a fertile period among other factors. However, HIV infection certainly has no such restrictions. Anyone that advocates anything but abstaining for HIV infected individuals is telling people to play Russian roulette with their spouses life. I can imagine nothing more selfish than the notion that sexual gratification is worth risking someone’s life.

The sexual behavior of people in Africa is certainly a major factor in the spread of AIDS there. Trying to sweep that fact under the rug is dishonesty of the worst kind. The only long term solution to arresting the spread of AIDS anywhere in the world is changing people’s sexual behaviors.

How effective are condoms in preventing HIV transmission?
An overwhelming body of evidence demonstrates that condoms are highly effective in preventing transmission of HIV. Correct and consistent condom use should give you a high degree of confidence in your ability to prevent HIV transmission.

Let’s look at what an objective organisation, the United Nations, through its UNAIDS global programme, has to say:

Quote:
The effectiveness of condoms
At least four different types of evidence demonstrate the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission. Laboratory studies have shown that the virus cannot pass through latex or polyurethane. There is also a theoretical basis for effectiveness: condoms prevent exposure to semen or vaginal fluids that may carry the virus. Epidemiological studies, which compare infection rates among condom users and non-users, have found that condoms offer significant protection against HIV infection. Finally, in many countries that have significantly reduced HIV infection rates (such as Brazil, Thailand and the USA), reduced rates of transmission have been strongly associated with increased condom use.
Few prevention methods are 100% effective. Condoms do occasionally slip or break, although fortunately this rarely happens. Condoms that are outdated, poorly manufactured, or inappropriately stored are especially susceptible to breakage. Oil-based products (such as hand lotion or petroleum jelly) can also damage male latex condoms, so only water-based lubricants should be used during sexual intercourse with a male condom.

In general, condoms are most likely to fail when they are not used as directed. Opening a condom packet with your teeth, a knife or scissors, for example, can inadvertently cause the condom to tear. It is important to use condoms from the beginning of a sexual act, rather than just before ejaculation, to prevent exposure to potentially infectious pre-ejaculate or vaginal fluids. Studies suggest that the frequency of condom failure declines as individuals become more accustomed to using condoms. That is one reason why effective HIV prevention includes both accurate information on condoms and measures to increase individual skill in using condoms correctly. As employees of the UN system, we are entitled to a facilitated demonstration of the use of both male and female condoms.

In reality, condoms are extremely effective in preventing HIV transmission when they are used. Because sexual intercourse is often unplanned, it is a good idea to always carry a condom in case you need one. If you have a steady partner, you should also discuss how you as a couple intend to reduce the risk of HIV transmission.

Ideally, a couple’s decision to use a condom results from a process of negotiation. The couple discusses the benefits of using a condom, addresses any concerns or resistance, and agrees on a mutually satisfactory approach. Sometimes, though, one member of the couple may lack the power to negotiate condom use. Many women, for example, report having difficulty asking their husband or partner to use a condom.

unworkplace.unaids.org/UNAIDS…-condoms.shtml

 

[nerfherder]

Its not the Church’s business to tell people how to sin.

Jesuit, Luska Zambia: The absolute minimum responsibility for young people who move into intimate sexual contact with their occasional, varying or semidetached partners, concretely consists in taking the necessary efficient measures so that pregnancy, HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and infections are prevented. This is a form of respect for life, the bottom line of which is expressed in the commandment “thou shalt not kill.” Not only does it require respect towards one’s own life and health, but also toward that of the partner and of the possible third person who can be conceived (or infected by oneself or the partner). It is also a form of honesty toward society which is often saddled with the “consequences” when one does not take up one’s responsibility. This prevention is an urgent moral duty and not a noncommittal advice or recommendation. …

Responsible sexuality implies also the task of obtaining information. Individuals should inform themselves about risky behaviour … However, it is not as simple to determine which information is the most reliable and which information best serves human dignity. That is why society, which is responsible for the general welfare and public health, has a duty toward prevention and information.

We saw a young woman who was allowed to be put to death by lack of water. The church–because Jesus was a man, because God became flesh, tells us all human life is precious.
REV. JOSEPH FESSIO

If this is a general statement of compassion, how would you apply it to this discussion? An elaboration would help.

 

[nerfherder]

Let’s deal with a number of realities that the “condoms are refractive armor for your penis” crowd always seems to ignore.

You are clearly knowledgeable about condoms.

I wonder if you would care to elaborate on the following generalisation. Some evidence, and sources would help us.

The sexual behavior of people in Africa is certainly a major factor in the spread of AIDS there. Trying to sweep that fact under the rug is dishonesty of the worst kind.

The only long term solution to arresting the spread of AIDS anywhere in the world is changing people’s sexual behaviors.

This is an observation that has been made by pretty well everyone associated with battling HIV/AIDS. It is one of our tools. But we know that by the time behaviour change takes effect, millions more will be infected. The plague is moving rapidly into Asia and Europe and the Caribbean - and they have taken little cognizance of the behaviours in other regions that have contributed to the spread prion responsible for HIV.

There are other tools as well: clean water, decent hygiene, enough food, formal and informal education, awareness teams, teaching respect for community values, zero-tolerance for rape.

While behaviour change is a long-term solution, there is an argument to be made for introducing damage-control, crisis-prevention, and humanitarian relief programmes for those most at risk now..

One of the worst problems of course is orphaning: there are at least 10 million HIV orphans in the southern Africa region alone, and they are for the most part without adults to socialise them, to teach them how to be good human beings, to be productive adults. I visited one village in Zimbabwe where there was not one adult in charge of a household: they were all dead of HIV. All homes were headed by children.

There is a role for the Church, and condoms are only one tool for making a difference in this terrible crisis.

 

[Eddy]

While it’s very comfortable to take the high moral ground about abstinence, and I don’t think anyone is saying that abstinence is not the best long-term solution, I do not think that give us, as the Church, the right to ignore, or deny, the current reality. Here are some statistics

• Some 30 percent of women are forced into their first sexual experience.
• One in three women worldwide will experience violence in her lifetime.
• One in five women worldwide will survive rape or attempted rape.
• Women who have experienced violence may be up to three times more likely to acquire HIV than those who have not.
• Twenty percent of girls and ten percent of boys experience sexual abuse during childhood.
• Almost half of all sexual assaults in the world are against girls aged 15 or younger.
• Violence against children takes place in the home, school, and community — perpetrators are frequently individuals that children know and trust.
• Sexual abuse in childhood may have long-term HIV infection consequences as lower self-esteem leads many victims of abuse to take greater sexual risks (Global AIDS Alliance, 2006: 6,7).

Now, those who are raped and abused DO NOT HAVE THE OPTION OF ABSTINENCE. In the long term we can attempt to change attitudes (likely to take generations), but what are we, as their brothers and sisters in Christ, going to do to help protect them from AIDS in the here and now?

 

[nerfherder]

Please remember this thread is NOT about condom use in general. There are a number of issues to be addressed - you can think of more if you wish - by the Catholic Church.

REMEMBER THE CHILDREN FOR WHOM WE ARE ACCOUNTABLE

The Sinisizo home-based care programme in Kwa-Zulu Natal helps children aged nine to 14 who are the primary caregivers for parents dying of AIDS and for smaller brothers and sisters. The majority live in households with no incomes, many with parents who have been sent home from hospital - sometimes comatose - a day or two before they are expected to die. In the many homes where there are no beds, the children, often malnourished, struggle to lift and turn their parents and to help them to the toilet. Children from some of the 900 families with whom Sinisizo is working told … the [13th International AIDS Conference, Durban, July 2000] about their difficulties. “They say waste disposal is the most difficult thing - getting rid of soiled dressings and incontinence pads. They also have to find food for their families, cook for and feed their parents and younger siblings. They have to ask for food from the neighbours and it takes hours to get enough for one day. They have to cook on paraffin stoves and open fires while they are carrying smaller children on their backs or hips. They have to fetch water for drinking, cooking, bathing and washing clothes, and a small child can’t carry enough.”

If there is any medication available, the children also dispense that, “but most of the time they can’t even get aspirin”. So, the children help their parents die; there is no time to mourn, because they must go and seek assistance to arrange a funeral.

REMEMBER THAT WE ARE EACH ACCOUNTABLE

We have to rise above our differences and combine our efforts to save our people. History will judge us harshly if we fail to do so now, and right now. Nelson Mandela, Former President, South Africa

 

[fix]

This proposition was published recently by my closest colleague in the battle against HIV, an eminent Jesuit (78 years old) based in Lusaka, who is a leading activist on the challenge of HIV to education systems. The Vatican is aware of his views, and those of many others with similar views within the Church.

Please read it and think. Comment if you want, but this is NOT an invitation to battle over condom use in the conventional sense. It IS an invitation to reflect on a Jesuit’s plea for reason and for right interpretation.

The complete paper is available by email on request.

His arguments are not new and fly in the face of constant Church teaching. Condomistic intercourse is termed instrinsically wrong.

How does he reconcile the following with his private teaching?:

1. The Church’s firmness in defending the universal and unchanging moral norms is not demeaning at all. Its only purpose is to serve man’s true freedom. Because there can be no freedom apart from or in opposition to the truth, the categorical — unyielding and uncompromising — defence of the absolutely essential demands of man’s personal dignity must be considered the way and the condition for the very existence of freedom…

…When it is a matter of the moral norms prohibiting intrinsic evil, there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone. It makes no difference whether one is the master of the world or the “poorest of the poor” on the face of the earth. Before the demands of morality we are all absolutely equal…

. Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such *always and per se, *in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”.131

With regard to intrinsically evil acts, and in reference to contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile, Pope Paul VI teaches: “Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (cf. Rom 3:8) — in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general”.133

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

 

[estesbob]

While it’s very comfortable to take the high moral ground about abstinence, and I don’t think anyone is saying that abstinence is not the best long-term solution, I do not think that give us, as the Church, the right to ignore, or deny, the current reality. Here are some statistics

• Some 30 percent of women are forced into their first sexual experience.
• One in three women worldwide will experience violence in her lifetime.
• One in five women worldwide will survive rape or attempted rape.
• Women who have experienced violence may be up to three times more likely to acquire HIV than those who have not.
• Twenty percent of girls and ten percent of boys experience sexual abuse during childhood.
• Almost half of all sexual assaults in the world are against girls aged 15 or younger.
• Violence against children takes place in the home, school, and community — perpetrators are frequently individuals that children know and trust.
• Sexual abuse in childhood may have long-term HIV infection consequences as lower self-esteem leads many victims of abuse to take greater sexual risks (Global AIDS Alliance, 2006: 6,7).

Now, those who are raped and abused DO NOT HAVE THE OPTION OF ABSTINENCE. In the long term we can attempt to change attitudes (likely to take generations), but what are we, as their brothers and sisters in Christ, going to do to help protect them from AIDS in the here and now?

Are you suggesting that the perpetuators fo the above would wear condoms if only the Church said they could?

 

[Eddy]

I’m suggesting three things.

Firstly, and most importantly, a simplistic analysis of the problems is lacking in responsibility. HIV/AIDS is tearing counties and socieities apart, and the factors which contribute to the pandemic are complex. We need to remember that this is about people, and all too often about the most vulnerable and fragile of the world family. It affects women disproportionately, and we need to remember that. These are our brothers and sisters.

Secondly, if the availability and acceptance of condoms are going to make the spread of HIV more difficult (so, for example, prevent someone becoming infected in the first place, so they’re less likely to pass it on to victims), then yes, I think they should be used. Secondly, non-consensual sex does not necessarily mean physical violence. So, for example, if a woman knows that her husband is infected, but he is threatening to throw her out of the home if she doesn’t consent to sex, then yes, he might consent to using a condom. But it’s not just about condom use - it’s about open communication about the realities of the illness. The less it’s surrounded by shame and secrecy, the more empowered and educated women get, the more information and support is available, the harder it will be for HIV to spread. I consider a child being orphaned by AIDS a greater evil than that child’s father using a condom to prevent her mother becoming infected by it.

And thirdly, I suggest we listen to what nerfherder, and the priest in question, have to say. Because they’ve worked on the front line and know what they’re talking about far more than those of us who’ve never worked in HIV/AIDS programmes. And we should be praying for them and God’s strength and protection for them in the work they do. They are the hands and face of Christ to many of those they work with.

 

[estesbob]

I’m suggesting three things.

Firstly, and most importantly, a simplistic analysis of the problems is lacking in responsibility. HIV/AIDS is tearing counties and socieities apart, and the factors which contribute to the pandemic are complex. We need to remember that this is about people, and all too often about the most vulnerable and fragile of the world family. It affects women disproportionately, and we need to remember that. These are our brothers and sisters.

Secondly, if the availability and acceptance of condoms are going to make the spread of HIV more difficult (so, for example, prevent someone becoming infected in the first place, so they’re less likely to pass it on to victims), then yes, I think they should be used. Secondly, non-consensual sex does not necessarily mean physical violence. So, for example, if a woman knows that her husband is infected, but he is threatening to throw her out of the home if she doesn’t consent to sex, then yes, he might consent to using a condom. But it’s not just about condom use - it’s about open communication about the realities of the illness. The less it’s surrounded by shame and secrecy, the more empowered and educated women get, the more information and support is available, the harder it will be for HIV to spread. I consider a child being orphaned by AIDS a greater evil than that child’s father using a condom to prevent her mother becoming infected by it.

And thirdly, I suggest we listen to what nerfherder, and the priest in question, have to say. Because they’ve worked on the front line and know what they’re talking about far more than those of us who’ve never worked in HIV/AIDS programmes. And we should be praying for them and God’s strength and protection for them in the work they do. They are the hands and face of Christ to many of those they work with.

You didnt answer my question. You listed a whole list of sexual abusers and infered that they would wear condoms if only the Church didnt ban it. If that was not your inference then it had no relevance to the topic.

You claim that the Church’s approval of condoms would make acceptance of them more prevalent but seem to believe that the opposite is not true-that the Church’s teachng of monogamy and abstinence would no likewise have an effect. In addtion you want the Church to change its teachings based on the circumstances in one region of the world at one particular time in history. Morality does not change from region to region nor does it change over time. As one Cardinal put it Governments think in terms of years, the Vatican thinks in terms of Centuries.

We have paid a heavy privce in this country because we allowed the myth of “safe sex” be taught to our children. Lets not make the same mistake in Africa.

 

[Eddy]

I don’t want to make the thread purely about condom use, at Nerfherder’s request. It’s a wider issue.

But. If you must. I have a couple of friends who’ve worked in Southern African countries. If Catholic workers, who are some of the key people providing education and health care in these countries, had permission and support for teaching and educating about use of condoms (as part of a much wider programme), then they would be able to have more of an impact. I know some nuns and priests do simply give married women condoms when they know their circumstances, but it’s a difficult move for them. They are caught in a quandry - to do what they believe to be morally right and receive Rome’s wrath, or to keep with Rome’s teachings and see preventable suffering getting worse.

While the abstinence solution is to be promoted - changing attitudes and behaviour there is likely to be much more long term - and require a complete restructuring of society, including the place of women and of children. In the shorter term, changing attitudes about condom is likely to be less difficult.

 

[Contarini]

I don’t really see why those who insist on sinning to begin with need Church approval for condom use. If they figure they have the right to their behavior why don’t they conclude they have the right to use a condom?

This is flawed in several ways:

1. In heavily Catholic areas, the availability of condoms to those with no moral scruple about using it may be dependent on nurses and others who do obey the teachings of the Church.
2. We are talking primarily about married people, who are obviously not sinning simply in having intercourse, although most likely one of them has sinned at some point in the past in order to get the disease in the first place.
3. Most people do not sin because they think they have the “right” to do so–they sin because they give in to temptation. The idea of a “right” to do what the Church says is sin is predominantly a product of modern Western culture (not to say that people in the past did not occasionally develop self-justifying rationales for what they did). Even here and now, it is more characteristic of Protestants than of Catholics. Generally, my impression (and I shared an apartment with an African Catholic for several months while doing dissertation research in Germany, so this is somewhat based on personal experience, albeit limited) is that modern African Catholics are a lot more like medieval Europeans than like modern Westerners in this regard. They sin for the old-fashioned reason that their passions get the better of them–not because they have constructed some private ideology that gives them the right to do so. Obviously if you sin sexually under the influence of passion you are unlikely to have a condom handy. Buying a condom is a calculated act and not something that any human passion naturally impels one to do in and of itself!

Edwin

 

[fix]

IThey are caught in a quandry - to do what they believe to be morally right and receive Rome’s wrath, or to keep with Rome’s teachings and see preventable suffering getting worse.

Here we find the real problem. We speak of Christ’s teaching. This teaching known from the natural moral law is from God, not some concocted rule to make people unhappy.

It is as if we each decide what is really true and what is really untrue simply by emotion and personal experience without properly forming our conscience.

Perhaps it is a case where some folks engaged in helping others have a type of clouded judgement. It may be that dire circumstances make us think less rationally.