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

[jack_hawkins]

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.

which is about not fulfilling one’s duties…
and also part of the OT - are you suggesting we are bound by other OT directives? should I get myself circumcised?

 

[Eddy]

Estesbob. You said ‘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’

So, you said, that if people follow the teachings of God’s church they won’t get HIV/AIDS. Now, a child with HIV, or a woman who’s been raped. How has that child or that woman failed to follow the teachings of God’s church? The point I was making wasn’t directly related to condoms. It was related to the frankly evil tendency to equate a person with HIV/AIDS with having broken Church Teaching. And even if they had, I hardly think someone who has sinned ‘deserves’ HIV/AIDS.

 

[LJN21]

which is about not fulfilling one’s duties…
and also part of the OT - are you suggesting we are bound by other OT directives? should I get myself circumcised?

Yeah your right OT directives are not important…

No more 10 Commandments

Condoms for everyone!

 

[ricmat]

I don’t think this has been mentioned yet…apologies if it has.

There are dozens of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) other than HIV, many of which are life-threatening, and most others with serious consequences such as sterility.

Whether or not condoms prevent HIV, they do NOTHING to prevent the spread of these other STDs.

Promoting the use of condoms instead of abstinence serves only to spread these other diseases by giving people a sense that unlimited (with condom) sex has no consequences. Is this a good solution?

The ONLY answer is abstinence, period. Not “Abstinence, but if you don’t like that answer then use condoms.”

 

[jack_hawkins]

Whether or not condoms prevent HIV, they do NOTHING to prevent the spread of these other STDs.

Huh?
according to who?
and there is no “whether or not condoms prevent HIV” - they do, PERIOD.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Yeah your right OT directives are not important…

No more 10 Commandments

Condoms for everyone!

which you know is not what I said at all we could mention OT directives all day that Christians don’t follow
do you mix cheese and ham for example? big no no for Jews
do you eat pork, shrimps or any of the other unclean foods?
do you have your children circumcised on the 8th day?

but condoms for everyone, if it would stop people dying of this dreadful virus - why not?

 

[LJN21]

which you know is not what I said at all
but condoms for everyone, if it would stop people dying of this dreadful virus - why not?

Because it is against Natural Law and therefor immoral.

You forget that while God (therefor Jesus) is all love he is also all JUSTICE. His justice is true justice. Sometimes we do not understand the fullness of it but we have things like Natural Law and the constant teaching of the Church to assure us we are on the right path.

Are you arguing that the constant and persistent teaching of the Church not the teaching of Christ himself? Or is this some arbitrary laws thought up to kill poor people by some guy in Rome? The Pope can’t just change Natural Law, it is a constant. Like the sun in the sky.

I’m really sorry your so wrapped up in these modernist ideas of relativism.

 

[seekerz]

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.

But there is AIDS. It is a reality of life. Below are some of the people from whom we are requiring abstinence:

• a good Catholic woman unfortunately bound by marriage to a philandering husband, who not only acquired the disease and brought it home to her, but will not take “no” as an answer in the bedroom
• hundreds (or thousands) of young women and women who will potentially survive to marriageable age because of medicines available to treat a disease they were born with (What are the chances of large numbers of young people remaining chaste for life?)
• a pregnant woman whose truck-driver husband is not known for his faithfulness or his self control either on the road or at home
• a doctor who risks his/her life everyday to help the poorest of the poor and who is faced with saying to his/spouse that they must now sacrifice their intimate relationship because of a needle-injury

Abstinence as a religious or single person is one thing; abstinence as a married couple living in cramped quarters? We need to be realistic.

I believe the Church should rethink the prophylactic use of condoms, even if it’s just for a particular area of the world because it would be the compassionate thing to do. Abstinence is not a one-person decision this requirement could mean a life of excruciating guilt for a devout Catholic married to an unwilling spouse.

Sin and death came into the world because of Adam and Eve, so do we just leave people to die of the resultant diseases if we can do otherwise? No, we take measures to help, heal and ease their distress regardless.

Here in the US where people have better access to life-saving drugs than in much of the Third World, normal marriage and child-bearing may be possible for infected people.

In some parts of the world, simply knowing whether one is infected may be a problem. Shouldn’t a woman be able to protect her life so that she can care for the little ones her husband’s going to leave behind when he succumbs to AIDS? Condoms may not be 100% effective, but there is enough data to suggest they help.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Because it is against Natural Law and therefor immoral.

You forget that while God (therefor Jesus) is all love he is also all JUSTICE. His justice is true justice. Sometimes we do not understand the fullness of it but we have things like Natural Law and the constant teaching of the Church to assure us we are on the right path.

Are you arguing that the constant and persistent teaching of the Church not the teaching of Christ himself? Or is this some arbitrary laws thought up to kill poor people by some guy in Rome? The Pope can’t just change Natural Law, it is a constant. Like the sun in the sky.

I’m really sorry your so wrapped up in these modernist ideas of relativism.

yes, just because you want to apply the label of relativism doesn’t mean it is correct!
do you understand what Natural Law is?
I wouldn’t say that condom use is Natural Law as I understand the definition - I don’t see how it can be???
I prefer Christian compassion over an erroneous application of certain teachings

 

[LJN21]

But there is AIDS. It is a reality of life. Below are some of the people from whom we are requiring abstinence:

• a good Catholic woman unfortunately bound by marriage to a philandering husband, who not only acquired the disease and brought it home to her, but will not take “no” as an answer in the bedroom
• hundreds (or thousands) of young women and women who will potentially survive to marriageable age because of medicines available to treat a disease they were born with (What are the chances of large numbers of young people remaining chaste for life?)
• a pregnant woman whose truck-driver husband is not known for his faithfulness or his self control either on the road or at home
• a doctor who risks his/her life everyday to help the poorest of the poor and who is faced with saying to his/spouse that they must now sacrifice their intimate relationship because of a needle-injury

Abstinence as a religious or single person is one thing; abstinence as a married couple living in cramped quarters? We need to be realistic.

I believe the Church should rethink the prophylactic use of condoms, even if it’s just for a particular area of the world because it would be the compassionate thing to do. Abstinence is not a one-person decision this requirement could mean a life of excruciating guilt for a devout Catholic married to an unwilling spouse.

Sin and death came into the world because of Adam and Eve, so do we just leave people to die of the resultant diseases if we can do otherwise? No, we take measures to help, heal and ease their distress regardless.

Here in the US where people have better access to life-saving drugs than in much of the Third World, normal marriage and child-bearing may be possible for infected people.

In some parts of the world, simply knowing whether one is infected may be a problem. Shouldn’t a woman be able to protect her life so that she can care for the little ones her husband’s going to leave behind when he succumbs to AIDS? Condoms may not be 100% effective, but there is enough data to suggest they help.

Empower the women!

To leave there abusive relationships and give them safe haven. The church has never required wives to stay with abusive husbands and their lives are clearly at risk.

Again there is a proactive response to all of these things that doesn’t include condoms.

 

[estesbob]

But there is AIDS. It is a reality of life. Below are some of the people from whom we are requiring abstinence:

• a good Catholic woman unfortunately bound by marriage to a philandering husband, who not only acquired the disease and brought it home to her, but will not take “no” as an answer in the bedroom
• hundreds (or thousands) of young women and women who will potentially survive to marriageable age because of medicines available to treat a disease they were born with (What are the chances of large numbers of young people remaining chaste for life?)
• a pregnant woman whose truck-driver husband is not known for his faithfulness or his self control either on the road or at home
• a doctor who risks his/her life everyday to help the poorest of the poor and who is faced with saying to his/spouse that they must now sacrifice their intimate relationship because of a needle-injury

People can always come up with scenarios they believe absolutely allows one to sin. We see the same specious arguments in the abortion debates.

Let me ask you this. If your dr told you in no uncertain terms that having sex would kill you would that make it OK for your wife to have a lover? I mean we cant expect her to be celibate beucase of YOUR problem can we?

 

[LJN21]

yes, just because you want to apply the label of relativism doesn’t mean it is correct!
do you understand what Natural Law is?
I wouldn’t say that condom use is Natural Law as I understand the definition - I don’t see how it can be???
I prefer Christian compassion over an erroneous application of certain teachings

Then you should do some honest study in to Natural Law. Separating the procreative element out of any form of sex in violation of Natural Law there for immoral.

Compassion never causes people to sin, nor could anything that cause sin be “Christian Compassion”

 

[estesbob]

yes, just because you want to apply the label of relativism doesn’t mean it is correct!
do you understand what Natural Law is?
I wouldn’t say that condom use is Natural Law as I understand the definition - I don’t see how it can be???
I prefer Christian compassion over an erroneous application of certain teachings

Chrisitan compassion is shown by encouraging people to sin? The Church should abandon 2,000 years of teachings becuase Jack Hawkins says they are wrong?

 

[jack_hawkins]

Then you should do some honest study in to Natural Law. Separating the procreative element out of any form of sex in violation of Natural Law there for immoral.

Compassion never causes people to sin, nor could anything that cause sin be “Christian Compassion”

Natural Law as defined by Hannah Arendt are those morals like the Ten Commandments that we naturally know as moral beings. Notb using a condom doesn’t come into that.

I don’t see how using a condom to prevent a fatal illness can be against any natural law.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Natural Law as defined by Hannah Arendt are those morals like the Ten Commandments that we naturally know as moral beings. Notb using a condom doesn’t come into that.

I don’t see how using a condom to prevent a fatal illness can be against any natural law.

Pardon me but who cares what Hannah Arendt (philosopher) says? She wasn’t even Catholic (but Jewish).

You are talking about the Catholic Church’s stance on comdoms aren’t you?

 

[seekerz]

People can always come up with scenarios they believe absolutely allows one to sin. We see the same specious arguments in the abortion debates.

Let me ask you this. If your dr told you in uncertain terms that having sex would kill you would that make it OK for your wife to have a lover? I mean we cant expect her to be celibate beucase of YOUR problem can we?

It would never be okay for my wife to have a lover, not the least of reasons being that I’m a woman!

Seriously though, where did I ever say that people in those scenarios are allowed to sin? I’m just suggesting the Church could look again at the issue because these people are in situations where there lives are at risk in many cases.

As for the question of empowering the women, in the real world where I live an incalculable number of women have husbands who’ve cheated at some point in time and some of them belong to cultures where a woman is expected to be submissive as a rule (not because the husband is physically threatening). Would I be forgiven for applying the word impossible to the idea of the Church giving sanctuary to all those women?

By the way, can we please not bring abortion into this debate?

Why not instead give your suggested solutions to the scenarios I mentioned? I promise I’ll read them.

 

[seekerz]

Empower the women!

Again there is a proactive response to all of these things that doesn’t include condoms.

I don’t doubt you. It would just be nice if you enumerated them the way I did.

 

[estesbob]

It would never be okay for my wife to have a lover, not the least of reasons being that I’m a woman!

Seriously though, where did I ever say that people in those scenarios are allowed to sin? I’m just suggesting the Church could look again at the issue because these people are in situations where there lives are at risk in many cases.

As for the question of empowering the women, in the real world where I live an incalculable number of women have husbands who’ve cheated at some point in time and some of them belong to cultures where a woman is expected to be submissive as a rule (not because the husband is physically threatening). Would I be forgiven for applying the word impossible to the idea of the Church giving sanctuary to all those women?

By the way, can we please not bring abortion into this debate?

Why not instead give your suggested solutions to the scenarios I mentioned? I promise I’ll read them.

I dont think the scenarios you mentioned have anythng to do with whether contraception is moral. They are akin to the canards thrown out in the abortion debates about rape and incest-one can always rationalize where it is ok to sin. Just beacues bad things happen to good people does not give one a license to sin…

The biggest mistake the Church could make is start determining morality dased upon the whims of the time. We have seen what this has done to the Episcopal Church, among others.

 

[ricmat]

Huh?
according to who?
and there is no “whether or not condoms prevent HIV” - they do, PERIOD.

I said in my post, maybe they do, maybe they don’t. For the sake of argument, let’s say that condoms prevent AIDS.

Now, does it make sense to tell people “Have sex with whomever you want whenever you want?” What about the other STD’s that will kill you? Oh, no problem, at least I didn’t die of AIDS.

Sheesh…

 

[seekerz]

I dont think the scenarios you mentioned have anythng to do with whether contraception is moral. They are akin to the canards thrown out in the abortion debates about rape and incest-one can always rationalize where it is ok to sin.

I thought religion was essentially about applying my faith in God to real life situations. In my mind, philosophical and theological discussions are only helpful if they can be applied to everyday life. Which is why I usually use examples in a discussion. What’s the use of a principle that has no practical application?

Under the principle of double-effect, I could see condoms being allowed for the purpose of protecting life rather than for contraception? I may be totally of track, but that’s the angle from which I look at it.

Indeed we are also taught that a woman who is raped has the right to defend herself against the attackers sperm (I’m paraphrasing here), so why not against a deadly disease?

I’ll be the first to admit I’m no theologian and may be looking at this all wrong, but what’s the harm in exploring, discussing and pondering problems? It’s really much easier to passively accept all teaching rather than to accept after having analyzed the issue critically, but then religion becomes all about rules rather than convictions.