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

[LJN21]

Nerfherder -

I have provided everything you ask several times. You are choosing to ignore and quote things completely out of context.

You are also the one that came to a Catholic forum and continue to uphold the UN as an absolute on Moral authority when their propaganda is frequently contrary to Catholic doctrine.

As to condoms and there failure rate. Stop quoting UN drivel and find me one study in which condoms have show over several years have a high success rate in getting AID/HIV.

 

[nerfherder]

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.

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

Please, this is reducing this discussion to little more than a rambling set of nonsenses. You seem to feel free to ascribe ideas and sentences to others at will. You assert what others have not said.

Botswana is only one of the many many countries trying to cope with this issue.

As I said before, I am not aware that Botswana ever introduced an actual condoms programme, as you have called it. They do provide condoms for free. Uganda does also, and they make further provision for condoms to be sold through international and national agencies, on the assumption that selling condoms will make them more purposeful.

I would make the assertion that condom use can help contain the spread of HIV, and reduce levels of infection and prevalence. I would make that assertion on the evidence produced by the World Health Organisation and other agencies of the United Nations, as well as the bilateral development agencies that work on HIV epidemics in various countries. Otherwise I would not have started this thread which looks at the evidence in the light of the Catholic Church’s stance on the issue.

I would never assert that simply by promoting condom use could a country like Botswana be made HIV/AIDS-free. It is only one of the useful weapons in the arsenal in the fight against AIDS, and is less useful where it works in a vacuum.

And, believe it or not, HIV and AIDS in countries like Botswana - in Africa or in Asia - are fighting a battle against many different factors, and not just sex and sexuality. I have outlined elsewhere some of the traditions, economic necessities, and drug abuse - for example - that complicate the battle.

Simplifying this complexity is dangerous for it limits our capacity to challenge this threat with any degree of insight.

 

[TheApologist]

Other than the morality side of it. Let’s look at the practicality side. You claim promoting condoms reduces transmission of HIV.

Let’s look at it logically. When people have sex with HIV, there is a, pretty much, 100 percent chance of transmission. When people have sex with HIV with a condom, there is a small chance of transmission. Since passing out condoms says “you have a less chance of transmission so you can have a lot of sex” more sex will occur. When more instances of sex occur, that chance of transmission is multiplied. Let’s say the chance of transmission is 10 percent(let’s just say) the first act gives people 10 percent chance of getting HIV. When the second act comes, the 10 percent is still there. Just as in Russian Roulette(with 1/6 of a chance of death every shot)…if you keep shooting, then eventually you will die. With the increased sexual activity(more shots)…eventually the person will contract HIV. When people have one sexual act with a condom, there’s a 10 % chance of passing on HIV. So when more acts come, the chance for contracting HIV heightens and heightens and heightens, until one needs a miracle to not contract it(like when someone has hundreds of sexual encounters over time…that’s a lot of chances for HIV).

 

[nerfherder]

No,never.

That is what you said in reply to a question from guanophore:

Do you trust the UN over the Catholic church?

Is this really an issue? The Church is responsible for our moral wellbeing. It speaks to our spiritual life.

The United Nations tries to keep the world stuck together, and is legally neutral with regard to religion, race, gender etc.

They have different jobs to do.

Just because the United Nations suggests that there is evidence that condoms have the potential to stem the tide of the HIV tsunami does not mean that we compare that with the teachings of the Catholic Church on the morality of condom use.

And don’t forget please, if you are discussing along this vein, that not all of humanity is Catholic.

 

[nerfherder]

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

I don’t know if they are Catholic or not. But we do know that lot’s of men use condoms and have sex with younger girls because they think there is less chance thereby of being infected with HIV.

And that is not the point of my statement anyway, as you know.

 

[TheApologist]

And don’t forget please, if you are discussing along this vein, that not all of humanity is Catholic.

Please note that if we believe Catholicism holds the Truth, we believe this Truth is appliable to all.

 

[LJN21]

I don’t know if they are Catholic or not. But we do know that lot’s of men use condoms and have sex with younger girls because they think there is less chance thereby of being infected with HIV.

And that is not the point of my statement anyway, as you know.

It doesn’t matter if there Catholic or not.

Just because your not catholic doesn’t make contraception some how okay.

It is STILL IMMORAL. It is still an intrinsic evil act. Now the person committing the sin may have based some degree of ignorance, some mitigation but God is still offended by the act.

 

[nerfherder]

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?!

OK! Actually, we have dealt with the Principle of Double Effect earlier, but you perhaps did not see it. I will give you two important notes, in two separate postings.

I agree with you that the discussion of Double Effect is critical.

From Fr K, SJ, Lusaka Zambia

**

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.

There is a growing consensus among Catholic moral theologians that the Church’s teaching finds room for this life-saving, ‘prophylactic’ use of condoms. The condom is used to protect against lethal infection. It is not being used to prevent conception. The protection of life takes priority and justifies the condom use.

In the second situation, where there is sex outside of marriage, the position of the Church has always been very clear. In every situation and circumstance, sex outside of marriage is unlawful. Essentially that is as far as the Church goes, for the simple reason that the Church does not legislate for what it regards as an unlawful situation. Hence it does not legislate for any of the circumstances surrounding that situation, such as condom use. In other words, what the Church prohibits is sex outside marriage. This is what is immoral. This is what should be avoided through abstinence. If however an individual chooses to ignore this prohibition and decides to practice extra-marital sex, the Church does not say—cannot say—how this immoral act should be conducted.

Nevertheless, the sacred principle of the priority of life still stands. Out of this principle flows not merely the lawfulness of using a condom when there is risk of contracting or transmitting the HIV virus, but even the obligation to do so. Responsible sexuality requires that those engaging in sexual activity take the necessary effective measures to prevent the transmission of HIV and other infections. In the words of a leading Catholic ethicist, “this prevention is an urgent moral duty and not a noncommittal advice or recommendation.” Roger Burggreave, Professor of Moral Theology at the Catholic University of Leuven: “From Responsible to Meaningful Sexuality”, p. 305 in Catholic Ethicists on HIV/AIDS Prevention (eds. J. F. Keenan, S.J., and others; New York: Concilium Publications, 2000)

This would be the principle governing every act of sexual intercourse where there is risk of HIV infection. It does not matter whether one is talking about fornication where neither party is married or about adultery where the intercourse is with somebody other than one’s lawful spouse. It does not make any difference whether one is talking about casual sex or commercial sex, about heterosexual or homosexual activity. The situation does not change according to the age of those involved; neither does it change according to whether it is a man or boy who initiates the sex or whether it is a girl or woman. Even in an unlawful union, the protection of life is the over-arching principle, and hence arises the obligation to protect oneself or one’s partner against life-threatening HIV infection.

**

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).

 

[LJN21]

OK! Actually, we have dealt with the Principle of Double Effect earlier, but you perhaps did not see it. I will give you two important notes, in two separate postings.

I agree with you that the discussion of Double Effect is critical.

From Fr K, SJ, Lusaka Zambia

---

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).

Oh my Gosh… your kidding me right?

We already did this about 10 times.

 

[TheApologist]

I honestly think this liberal priest is in error. Now please present an argument which looks at the necessaries of the Double Effect EVERY formulaicly as I have done below. Please give this formula and show that this situation would be valid use of the Principle.

Let’s show Double Effect. Okay…the situation is that a married couple has one person who has inadverdently been infected with HIV(let’s say through an open wound on his/her arm). They want to continue sex but don’t want to give HIV to the wife, so they propose using a condom since they think using it would be good use of the Double Effect Principle.

Needs for valid use of Double Effect:

1. that the action in itself from its very object be good or at least indifferent;
2. that the good effect and not the evil effect be intended;
3. that the good effect be not produced by means of the evil effect;
4. that there be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect” (1949, p. 43).
5. Let’s see…the action of not spreading disease is good. Pass.
6. The married couple honestly doesn’t want the contraceptive angle of it. Pass.
7. Wait! The good effect of not spreading disease is produced by the evil effect of using contraception. Fail.
8. There is legitimate reason. Pass

If even one of the point fails, then the use is invalid.

INVALID. Situation is not moral and should not occur.

Please show me my error.

 

[nerfherder]

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?!

I see I set out the Principle of Double Effect for you in #252. I’m sorry no one has yet taken you up on it - I agree it is the core of the discussion.

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheApologist
Can we first confirm that the Double Effect is in order? Can someone please post the Double Effect formula so that we can undeniably prove that this is in the Double Effect category?

Quote:
The Principle of Double Effect generally states that, in cases where a contemplated action has both good effects and bad effects, the action is permissible only if it is not wrong in itself and if it does not require that one directly intend the evil result. It has many obvious applications to morally complex cases in which one cannot achieve a particular desired good result without also bringing about some clear evil. The principle of double effect, once largely confined to discussions by Catholic moral theologians, in recent years has figured prominently in the discussion of both ethical theory and applied ethics by a broad range of contemporary philosophers.

Formulation of the Principle. Classical formulations of the principle of double effect require that four conditions be met if the action in question is to be morally permissible: first, that the action contemplated be in itself either morally good or morally indifferent; second, that the bad result not be directly intended; third, that the good result not be a direct causal result of the bad result; and fourth, that the good result be “proportionate to” the bad result. Supporters of the principle argue that, in situations of “double effect” where all these conditions are met, the action under consideration is morally permissible despite the bad result.

Each of these conditions has, however, been a matter of considerable controversy. The first condition requires some criterion independent of an evaluation of consequences for determining the moral character of the proposed action. Moral philosophers who believe that the moral character of an action is exhaustively determined by the nature of its consequences will, of course, object to this requirement.

The second condition assumes that a sharp distinction can be drawn between directly intending a result and merely foreseeing it. This requirement has been the subject of much debate. Some philosophers argue that if an agent recognizes that a certain consequence will inevitably follow from a contemplated action, then in performing the action the agent must be intending the consequence. Others argue, less strongly, that defenders of double effect have failed to delineate a practicable criterion for marking off the intended from the merely foreseen. Defenders of the principle typically respond by pointing to the implicit recognition of the moral significance of this distinction in the moral practices of ordinary persons.

The third condition writes into the principle of double effect the so-called Pauline principle, “One should never do evil so that good may come.” Again, philosophers who reject the view that actions can have a moral character independent of their consequences will find this condition unacceptable.

The fourth condition, by bringing in the notion of proportionality, has seemed to many philosophers to undercut the absolutism presupposed by the first condition. Although the first three conditions have a decidedly anticonsequentialist character, the fourth may appear to embrace consequentialist reasoning. Defenders of the principle typically attempt to accommodate the consequentialist character of the fourth condition while ensuring that it does not render the more complex features of the principle irrelevant.

From Encyclopedia of Ethics

---

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).

 

[TheApologist]

I see I set out the Principle of Double Effect for you in #252. I’m sorry no one has yet taken you up on it - I agree it is the core of the discussion.

Please use this formula and prove that the situation you propose is valid use of it:

1. that the action(stopping disease I think) in itself from its very object be good or at least indifferent;
2. that the good effect and not the evil effect be intended;
3. that the good effect be not produced by means of the evil effect;
4. that there be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect

 

[nerfherder]

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.

I wonder what you think you are achieving here?

Who said anyone handed out condoms and told them to have at it, as you so crudely put it?

Who said that Botswana is now virtually AIDS-free? Of course it is not.

Perhaps you would like to make a statement of some substance when you post again. You seem to be very knowledgeable about Botswana. Perhaps you have worked there, and have had some experience of the epidemic there.

 

[nerfherder]

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.

When did we make this decision? I thought you were begging for a discussion of the Principle of Double Effect. Or is it just that you want a target to shoot down. Can you let me know? I am trying to keep this discussion on some kind of useful track.

 

[TheApologist]

Nerfherder,
As I see it, the things you quote only say, “since the intention is towards not spreading disease and the intention is not to have contraceptive sex it passes the Double Effect test” is wrong. This is merely one point in the Double Effect test. Please formulaic prove that the situation is valid use of the Principle through this formula:

1. that the action in itself from its very object be good or at least indifferent;
2. that the good effect and not the evil effect be intended;
3. that the good effect be not produced by means of the evil effect;
4. that there be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect” (1949, p. 43).

 

[TheApologist]

When did we make this decision? I thought you were begging for a discussion of the Principle of Double Effect. Or is it just that you want a target to shoot down. Can you let me know? I am trying to keep this discussion on some kind of useful track.

Uhh sorry… I meant that we(of the opinion that the situation is immoral) have come to an informed decision.

EDIT:
Well, I’ll have to continue later because I have to go to work!

 

[nerfherder]

THERE ARE THREE OPTIONS!!!
Saving lives through immoral means(condoms), saving lives through moral means(abstinence), and not saving lives by not promoting either means.

If people refuse to not have sex, then they obviously have a disease(addiction) and need medical treatment to stop their addiction.

Perhaps you are not terribly au fait, as a student, with issues relating to HIV and AIDS, and perhaps you have been too busy to read the previous 400 postings, and perhaps you are jumping in at the end here.

You are correct in your approach through the Double Effect Principle, and I hope someone takes you up on that. I have posted the material needed for the discussion.

Otherwise, your brief coments are not conducive to productive thinking. And sorry to say darling, but your signature makes you look like a bag lady. I think I am running out of patience. Sorry.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I wonder what you think you are achieving here?

The question is, what do you think you are achieving? You have come to a Catholic site and attacked Catholic teaching.

Who said anyone handed out condoms and told them to have at it, as you so crudely put it?

Are you telling me you did not support condoms as a way to reduce AIDS?

Who said that Botswana is now virtually AIDS-free? Of course it is not.

But if condoms were the answer – or even helpful, it would be.

Perhaps you would like to make a statement of some substance when you post again. You seem to be very knowledgeable about Botswana. Perhaps you have worked there, and have had some experience of the epidemic there.

You remind me of a Preventive Medicine Officer when I was Deputy Operations Officer to the 2nd Infantry Division in Korea. General Johnson told me, “Vern, we need to do something about our training.”

So I went through the Division Training Regulation and cut out all the wasteful, non-productive mandatory classes.

The Preventive Medicine Officer came running in with his hair on fire. “You can’t cut the mandatory monthly VD classes!!”

Me: “Why not?”

PMO: “Because this division has the highest VD rate in the Army!”

Me: “And how long has it had that rate?”

PMO: “As long as it’s been in Korea!!”

Me: “And how long have we had mandatory monthly VD classes?”

PMO: “As long as the division has been in Korea!!”

Me: “So obviously the classes aren’t working.”

I thought he was going to have a stroke.

Later on, Bill Clinton, of all people, summed it up: “Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is insanity by definition.”

 

[nerfherder]

Nerfherder -

I have provided everything you ask several times. You are choosing to ignore and quote things completely out of context.

You are also the one that came to a Catholic forum and continue to uphold the UN as an absolute on Moral authority when their propaganda is frequently contrary to Catholic doctrine.

As to condoms and there failure rate. Stop quoting UN drivel and find me one study in which condoms have show over several years have a high success rate in getting AID/HIV.

Sorry,

(1) I am not sure what you have provided me with. Can you brief me?
(2) I am not aware of having ignored anything you have said, because I have been concerned that you and several others are derailing what used to be a purposeful, thoughtful, insightful and somewhat useful discussion of one of the world’s really important issues…
(3) Coming to a Catholic forum has nothing to do with anything: I have every right to do so, according to a number of criteria.
(4) I have not said that the UN is an absolute moral authority, and have made a statement to that effect.
(5) I do not believe that every moral statement that is antithetical to the policy of the Catholic Church is immoral or amoral wrt all of humanity, if that is what you are implying.
(6) I would like to know why you use the term ‘UN drivel’. Do you have evidence, or a personal experience, that would cause you to diss them like this? Or are you just trying to reduce the discussion to this low level?
(7) ‘find me one study in which condoms have show over several years have a high success rate in getting AID/HIV’: this sentence is unintelligible, and I cannot answer.

I do not know what you have against me, or against the questions, but you are certainly very angry and confrontational. It doesn’t help anyone, and is having an exceedingly negative effect on some of us.

 

[nerfherder]

Other than the morality side of it. Let’s look at the practicality side. You claim promoting condoms reduces transmission of HIV.

Let’s look at it logically. When people have sex with HIV, there is a, pretty much, 100 percent chance of transmission.

No. For women, there is one chance in 100 in being infected with the virus; for men the figure is 1 in 1000.

When people have sex with HIV with a condom, there is a small chance of transmission.

There is a very small chance of transmission.

Since passing out condoms says “you have a less chance of transmission so you can have a lot of sex” more sex will occur.

Perhaps that is what you think, and lots of other students in the US. But you see, that is only a one-sided image of the causes of virus transmission. It assumes that you have a choice about having anal, oral or vaginal intercourse. And as we have discussed earlier, many people - men and women - do not have a choice, for a variety of reasons. So handing out condoms is not simply a license to have roaring sex. In fact there are many who would prefer to be abstinent, but have no choice.

When more instances of sex occur, that chance of transmission is multiplied. Let’s say the chance of transmission is 10 percent(let’s just say) the first act gives people 10 percent chance of getting HIV. When the second act comes, the 10 percent is still there. Just as in Russian Roulette(with 1/6 of a chance of death every shot)…if you keep shooting, then eventually you will die. With the increased sexual activity(more shots)…eventually the person will contract HIV.

When people have one sexual act with a condom, there’s a 10 % chance of passing on HIV. So when more acts come, the chance for contracting HIV heightens and heightens and heightens, until one needs a miracle to not contract it(like when someone has hundreds of sexual encounters over time…that’s a lot of chances for HIV).

Your assumptions are unhappily incorrect. I think if you get information from some of the websites (I cannot do it for you as it is now past 1 am here in South Africa) you will find that as I have said, there is no 10 per cent chance of getting HIV in one act of intercourse without a condom, nor is there a 10 per cent chance of getting HIV in one act of intercourse using a condom.

Yes, prostitutes and truck drivers who are prone to passing sex with different people, and in greater numbers are at greater risk than others of being infected, and passing the virus to others. But that is not reflected in your logic.