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

[estesbob]

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.

Again you blame the Churc for the misery caused by peoples promiscouity. Again you expect the Church to overturn 2,000 years of teachings because of what is going on in one region at one point in time.

 

[LJN21]

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

Sex in marriage that isn’t open to life is immoral and sinful. Using a condom prevent the spread of HIV also prevents life which is immoral in all cases. You can not ever get a moral out come form an immoral act. I know that sounds rabidly uncaring and I assure you that isn’t my intent. My point is the spiritual ramifications of braking natural law is far worse than the effects of any disease. We tend to focus far to much on the exterior horror of HIV and forget than the focus of this life is not the “quality of life” but the after life.

 

[Eddy]

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.

Fix. Please see quote below from OP. THe question is if the teaching is not in keeping with the requirement to protect life, where condoms are being used, not to prevent life, but to save it.

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.

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.”
.

Again you blame the Churc for the misery caused by peoples promiscouity. Again you expect the Church to overturn 2,000 years of teachings because of what is going on in one region at one point in time.

The church has not had 2000 years of teaching on condoms. The church does have 2000 years of teaching on the requirement to protect life. And the problem is that HIV/AIDS is a pandemic, and those who suffer are not necessarily guilty of promiscuity. And if course the church adapts to what is happening in a particular place at a particular time, otherwise it wouldn’t have teachings on condoms (and many other issues) in the first place.

 

[jack_hawkins]

I know that sounds rabidly uncaring

well if it sounds rabidly uncaring, doesn’t that suggest it might be?
when people start talking about the hereafter being more important than the here and now (which is to an extent true), it worries because that logic extrapolated leads people to become suicide bombers
do you think dying with HIV is nice? more importantly, what sort of witness do you think it is telling people that God wants them to die a horrible death rather than break a rule?

 

[estesbob]

Fix. Please see quote below from OP. THe question is if the teaching is not in keeping with the requirement to protect life, where condoms are being used, not to prevent life, but to save it.

The church has not had 2000 years of teaching on condoms. The church does have 2000 years of teaching on the requirement to protect life. And the problem is that HIV/AIDS is a pandemic, and those who suffer are not necessarily guilty of promiscuity. And if course the church adapts to what is happening in a particular place at a particular time, otherwise it wouldn’t have teachings on condoms (and many other issues) in the first place.

The Church has always held that cotraception was immoral and a grevious sin. Always. It was affirmed again in 1968. Up until 1932 , BTW, there had never been a Christian Faith that approved contraception.

What you call “adapting to the times” is nothing more than preaching situation ethics-that is morality is based on your view the current situation. You want the Church to overturn 2,000 years of teachings out of a misguided compassion for people in a certain region at a certain point in time. The Church can not do that. Either condom use is right or it is wrong. It cant be “right” in one place and “wrong” in another place or time.

 

[LJN21]

well if it sounds rabidly uncaring, doesn’t that suggest it might be?
when people start talking about the hereafter being more important than the here and now (which is to an extent true), it worries because that logic extrapolated leads people to become suicide bombers
do you think dying with HIV is nice? more importantly, what sort of witness do you think it is telling people that God wants them to die a horrible death rather than break a rule?

Killing your self to kill others is a completely different thing. Even in the example of someone blowing themselves up of an abortion clinic, where immoral actions take place every day. There is no morality in this because of the command “Thou shalt not Kill” which applies even to yourself. Even if you manage to shut down the clinic (arguably saving lives) it is still completely immoral act.

Taking care of the sick helping to make sure they die with the sacraments and with human dignity would be far more caring and loving that condoning people to live in sin.

It never seems to occur to some that there are certain laws that just can’t be broken with out sin. It is against Natural Law to take the procreative element out of sex - marital or otherwise. When you do, even to “save a life” you have perverted the act and made it an abomination. Again you can’t make an immoral action right because it meets the ends you like.

 

[estesbob]

well if it sounds rabidly uncaring, doesn’t that suggest it might be?
when people start talking about the hereafter being more important than the here and now (which is to an extent true), it worries because that logic extrapolated leads people to become suicide bombers
do you think dying with HIV is nice? more importantly, what sort of witness do you think it is telling people that God wants them to die a horrible death rather than break a rule?

. So the Church’s teachings on contracepion is equivalent to blowing oneself up in a crowded marketplace. And, BTW, yes the hereafter is infinately more important than the present.

No one is telling people God wants them to die a horrible death-they are telling them if they follow the teachings of God’s Church they wont get the disease in the first place.

 

[Contarini]

Sex in marriage that isn’t open to life is immoral and sinful. Using a condom prevent the spread of HIV also prevents life which is immoral in all cases. You can not ever get a moral out come form an immoral act. I know that sounds rabidly uncaring and I assure you that isn’t my intent. My point is the spiritual ramifications of braking natural law is far worse than the effects of any disease. We tend to focus far to much on the exterior horror of HIV and forget than the focus of this life is not the “quality of life” but the after life.

Fine, but that was not my point. My point was that there are married couples who are abiding by the teachings of the Church, who would presumably use condoms if the Church said it was OK. I was not making a general point about the argument, but responding to the specific argument that allowing condoms for HIV prevention would make no difference. This argument is clearly false.

Edwin

 

[jack_hawkins]

Killing your self to kill others is a completely different thing.

my point is that it isn’t as different as you make out
I did also say that that would be an extrapolation of the logic involved, not that they were necessrily morally equivalent

not allowing the use of condoms for preventing HIV is certianly not “pro-life”, and not doing something that could save someone’s life is not far from actively doing something to end their life - not giving someone defibrillation when they went into ventricular fibrillation would not be far removed from actively killing them would it (with the proviso that resuscitation was medically indicated of course)?

would Jesus want people to suffer terminal AIDS?

 

[fix]

Fix. Please see quote below from OP. THe question is if the teaching is not in keeping with the requirement to protect life, where condoms are being used, not to prevent life, but to save it.

I undestand that is the assertion, but it is a faulty type of reasoning. A good end is never justified by an evil means. Once the act is frustrated, like using a condom, it is no longer a good act. It is not sex but masturbation.

 

[iamrefreshed]

nerfherder,

I note from your profile that you are converting to the Catholic faith.

Is the issue of birth control one you find troubling within the faith?

 

[fix]

not allowing the use of condoms for preventing HIV is certianly not “pro-life”, and not doing something that could save someone’s life is not far from actively doing something to end their life - not giving someone defibrillation when they went into ventricular fibrillation would not be far removed from actively killing them would it (with the proviso that resuscitation was medically indicated of course)?

would Jesus want people to suffer terminal AIDS?

Cardioversion is not intrinsically evil. Contraception is.

When did Jesus ever claim sin was acceptable because any situation?

 

[fix]

well if it sounds rabidly uncaring, doesn’t that suggest it might be?
when people start talking about the hereafter being more important than the here and now (which is to an extent true), it worries because that logic extrapolated leads people to become suicide bombers
do you think dying with HIV is nice? more importantly, what sort of witness do you think it is telling people that God wants them to die a horrible death rather than break a rule?

I am afraid you have it backward. Conforming one in their sin is what Christ warned against when He said it would be better to have a millstone around your neck and thrown into the sea than to lead another astray.

 

[Eddy]

.
No one is telling people God wants them to die a horrible death-they are telling them if they follow the teachings of God’s Church they wont get the disease in the first place.

How, on the 4th page of this debate, can you not realise by now that this is not true? If someone rapes you, and you find you’ve HIV, you may have followed the teaching of God’s Church, but you’ve still got HIV. And all those millions of children who were infected before birth, how are they guilty?

I realise that views are unlikely to change on this forum. Call me guilty of misguided compassion if you want - I’d rather be compassionate than ‘rabidly uncaring’.

 

[LJN21]

Fine, but that was not my point. My point was that there are married couples who are abiding by the teachings of the Church, who would presumably use condoms if the Church said it was OK. I was not making a general point about the argument, but responding to the specific argument that allowing condoms for HIV prevention would make no difference. This argument is clearly false.

Edwin

That is the point contraception is immoral and wrong even in marriage. It perverts the very nature of marriage. Condoms are a contraceptive even if the intent is to avoid HIV. An immoral action even with good intentions is still immoral.

As far as condoms even working to prevent HIV in couples. Try looking for research not published by the UN, Planned Parenthood and Condom manufactures. Over an extended period of time it doesn’t work.

To Jack as far as what Jesus would do…

Jesus would never tell someone to sin to avoid death.

 

[fix]

Sex in marriage that isn’t open to life is immoral and sinful. Using a condom prevent the spread of HIV also prevents life which is immoral in all cases. You can not ever get a moral out come form an immoral act. I know that sounds rabidly uncaring

I would think it may sound uncaring in a culture that does not know what love and truth are. It sounds uncaring if we form our conscience by listening to TV and relativisitic pundits rather than Christ through His Church. We are called to be a sign of contradiction not secularists.

God does not ask the impossible.

 

[jack_hawkins]

That is the point contraception is immoral and wrong even in marriage. It perverts the very nature of marriage. Condoms are a contraceptive even if the intent is to avoid HIV. An immoral action even with good intentions is still immoral.

As far as condoms even working to prevent HIV in couples. Try looking for research not published by the UN, Planned Parenthood and Condom manufactures. Over an extended period of time it doesn’t work.

To Jack as far as what Jesus would do…

Jesus would never tell someone to sin to avoid death.

au contraire - Jesus was for people not rules
tell me where Jesus tells people to die rather than wear a condom?
there’s many examples in the scriptures where the rules were broken to put the welfare of people first eg David and his men eating the shewbread amongst others
that is the saviour I follow

 

[estesbob]

How, on the 4th page of this debate, can you not realise by now that this is not true? If someone rapes you, and you find you’ve HIV, you may have followed the teaching of God’s Church, but you’ve still got HIV. And all those millions of children who were infected before birth, how are they guilty?

I realise that views are unlikely to change on this forum. Call me guilty of misguided compassion if you want - I’d rather be compassionate than ‘rabidly uncaring’.

If someone is raped do you really believe their attacker would have used a condom if only the Church approved of their use?

The views i express are not “my” views. they are the views of the One True Church, the Church founded by Jesus Christ. If you take issue with those views you should take it up with him. Thats what I did. I used to have huge problems with Church on Contraception. After studying Humanae Vitae and much prayer i realized , as always, the Church was correct.

 

[LJN21]

au contraire - Jesus was for people not rules
tell me where Jesus tells people to die rather than wear a condom?
there’s many examples in the scriptures where the rules were broken to put the welfare of people first eg David and his men eating the shewbread amongst others
that is the saviour I follow

Genesis 38: 9-10

9 He knowing that the childern should not be his, when he went to his brothers wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest the childern should be born in his brothers name.

10 And therfore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.

 

[estesbob]

au contraire - Jesus was for people not rules
tell me where Jesus tells people to die rather than wear a condom?
there’s many examples in the scriptures where the rules were broken to put the welfare of people first eg David and his men eating the shewbread amongst others
that is the saviour I follow

False premise. Nowhere does the Church tell people they should die rather than wear a condom. If people followed the Church’s teaching on sexualtiy there would be no AIDS.