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

  • Thread starter Thread starter nerfherder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Above all we follow the Teachings of the Church. I analyze the situation and if i find myself in disagreement with the Church i must acknowledge i am wrong. I went though much prayer and study on their teachings on Contraception and abortion in caes of rape and incest.

BTW-I actually think a case could be made for the double effect exception. But thus far the Church does not see it that way.
 
I don’t buy into the AIDs across Africa thing. Some of it may be due to HIV infection, yea, I’ll give you that, but my nickel is on the drinking water.
Perhaps I’m ignorant here, but I don’t think the virus the causes AIDs is able to transmit itself that way. I recall reading that it’s actually rather fragile–for a virus. A lot more relevant is the culture in some African nations that promotes the raping of virgins by men suffering AIDs for “cleansing” purposes.

As long as that depraved culture remains alive and well, AIDs is unfortunately going to cause pain to the innocents–and others. I’m not sure how I see how condoms are going to correct the problem, when the problem’s root cause (or much of it) can be linked to this Culture of Death.

I think what we have to remember here, though, is to love the sinner and hate the sin. I think to suggest that AIDs is divine punishment for the world’s ills may miss the real cause of “physical evil”, as the CCC calls it. That is, the natural world is at work here–not God.
 
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?:
What does this have to do with Christ’s compassion and healing ministry?
 
Are you suggesting that the perpetuators fo the above would wear condoms if only the Church said they could?
This is a question raised again and again, without any purpose but to put discussion off down a sidebar. Get back on track.
 
But I can also remember the now deceased false visionary Veronica Luekens up in Bayside, NY, making pronouncemnets that AIDS is a punishment for homosexuality. Fortunately the Church quickly condemned the movement as a false apparition site.
On the other hand, sin does seem to carry with it its own punishment.
 
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.
That is true. On the other hand, the same physical act can have a different moral value depending on circumstances and the reason for its performance, and the Church clearly recognizes this.

Some women are prescribed the same hormone medications used as birth control pills for other, legitimate medical reasons. As has been stated several times on these boards in response to inquiries from women in that situation, the Church does not forbid normal marital relations in that instance, even though a contraceptive effect will necessarily occur, because the contraception is an unintended side effect of the use of the medication for a different reason.

It seems to me that the same reasoning could apply to the use of condoms by a married couple in which one partner is infected with HIV and the other is not. The condom is not being employed for its contraceptive effect (though that will necessarily occur) but for its ability to retard transmission of the virus. I agree that abstinence is probably still the wisest course of action in that circumstance, even using the 85% protection figure, but I’m not certain it’s the only moral course of action.

Usagi
 
This discussion goes round and round. Let me sum up:

There are two proposals for stemming the spread of AIDS. The first, espoused by the Church, works.

The other doesn’t.

And some would have the Church abandon its position and start advocating what doesn’t work.
 
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…
there’s three big issues here
  1. we don’t have to assume condoms prevent HIV transmission - we know from scientific research. sadly people persist on passing on the urban myths about pores in condoms
  2. you construct a strawman argument that people who are involved in HIV prevention are telling people to sleep with whomever they want to, whenever they want to
  3. you think for some reason condoms don’t prevent other STIs - why?
 
there’s three big issues here
  1. we don’t have to assume condoms prevent HIV transmission - we know from scientific research. sadly people persist on passing on the urban myths about pores in condoms
So how come Botswana has seen such a jump in AIDS?

It’s because comdoms don’t prevent AIDS if:
  • You get drunk or take drugs and don’t use them.
  • You tear them.
  • You don’t put them on right
  • You aren’t careful
  1. you construct a strawman argument that people who are involved in HIV prevention are telling people to sleep with whomever they want to, whenever they want to
You construct a strawman when you ask us to accept perfect performance. People engaging in illicit sex often do so under circumstance where condoms fail.
 
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.
No I am to Natural Law as defind by St. Thomas Aquinas among others
 
Enough is enough; there has been too much deadly righteousness already. This statement, made earlier today by another poster, is profoundly distressing, and casts a shadow over the whole mission of Christ in favour of the teaching of this unique Catholic Church.

My life, and that of countless thousands of others, has been spent in trying to stem the tide of an abominable plague such as we have not seen for centuries. We do not know when it will end - perhaps not for another century or more. It is probable that well over 100 million people have died from HIV in the past 30 years alone, and there are at least 100 million currently infected. And drugs will not cure them, but will keep the poor alive for a couple of years, the wealthy a few more. In South Africa alone, more than 1500 people are infected each day. And no, this is not a matter of immorality, where one makes a judgement about the behaviour of another.

To say that HIV is ‘unfortunate’ is a foul understatement, and reveals a level of unknowing that is profound. Please read and learn; please feel somewhat responsible for the suffering of the wretched of the earth who are those who are most affected by this pandemic.

And when we could be saving lives, every day, for young and old, by using the tools that we have to combat HIV infection, it is morally wrong not to do so. That is my opinion. It is also the opinion of others within the Catholic church:

Quote:
I’m going to try not to argue about whether or not the use of a condom is inherently evil (which is the issue…the Bible forbids doing evil that good may come of it). Rather, I will address the assertions of the poster and his quote.

First, the “mission of Christ”. Christ did indeed cure the sick, but it was not His mission. He did so so that we would know “that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” (Matt 9:6) He came to give us eternal life (John 3:16) and to testify to the Truth (John 18:37). Which is not to say that WE are not to heal the sick, and care for the lives and bodies of our fellow man. Jesus requires that we do so to the extent of our ability. (Matt 25, et al) Furthermore the mission of this “unique Catholic church” is the same as Christ’s. We are His Body, and we are to care for the soul, to bring all men to Him.

To say that AIDS/HIV is an “abominable plague” is quite true! But to say that we have not seen the like “for centuries” is disingenuous and alarmist. WHO estimates that 25 million people have been killed since its inception, and currently some 39 million are living with the disease. As a comparison, the influenza epidemic of the early 20th century killed 50-100 million people worldwide in less than two years, and the now all but nonexistent smallpox epidemic killed over 300 million people in the past century, over a hundred years after the development of the first vaccine for it… The human race is no stranger, even in modern times, to plague.

The entirety of this arguement rests on the assumption that condom use is morally neutral, and it is merely the purpose to the use which ascribes a negative moral value to it, which does not seem to be the position of the Church; and that the preservation of life is the ultimate, or near ultimate, good. I said I would not argue for or against the first, and I reject the second. It is, indeed, our obligation, our GRAVE obligation, to care for the sick and dying, and to prevent the spread of illness, but not by any means available to us. After all [hyperbolicmoralequivalence] one could propose to stop the spread of a disease by killing all the infected people, but I think we recognize this as an unacceptable path [/hyperbolicmoralequivalence]. Just as it would be gravely wrong to preserve one life at the cost of another, it would be gravely wrong to attempt to preserve one life at the cost of a soul. After all, “what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and suffers the loss of his own soul…” (Matt 16:26)
 
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 wonder if Mark 2:23-27 doesn’t have some relevance to our discussion.
23
14 As he was passing through a field of grain on the sabbath, his disciples began to make a path while picking the heads of grain.
24
At this the Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the sabbath?”
25
He said to them, “Have you never read what David did 15 when he was in need and he and his companions were hungry?
26
How he went into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the bread of offering that only the priests could lawfully eat, and shared it with his companions?”
27
Then he said to them, "The sabbath was made for man, 16 not man for the sabbath.
usccb.org/nab/bible/mark/mark2.htm

I don’t think we should get overly legalistic in our formulation of God’s Will. Human life is of absolute value and preventing its loss is of the highest good. The letter of the Law slays, but the spirit of the Law gives life.
40.png
LJN21:
To Jack as far as what Jesus would do…

Jesus would never tell someone to sin to avoid death.
Well…
 
I wonder if Mark 2:23-27 doesn’t have some relevance to our discussion.

usccb.org/nab/bible/mark/mark2.htm

I don’t think we should get overly legalistic in our formulation of God’s Will. Human life is of absolute value and preventing its loss is of the highest good. The letter of the Law slays, but the spirit of the Law gives life.

Well…
Working on the Sabbath because your starving to death is not sinful. The Church teaches that necessary work (including hard manual labor) if not avoidable is perfectly acceptable. The two aren’t even in the same realm of discussion.
 
There are couples (usually in developed countries) who have normal sexual relations (no condoms) and eventually even have children even though one partner is infected. Access to effective drugs and close monitoring of the level of the virus in their bodies allows that.

Maybe the practical solution is to advocate getting that same level of healthcare to Third World countries.

That would probably be more effective than requiring thousands of couples to practice abstinence. It’s a noble goal and rightly required but the reality is it ain’t gonna happen and children are going to be left with 0 parents rather than at least 1.

There have be choices other than “condoms” or “no condoms”, it’s up to us to find them. In this quest I think, Catholics should be at the forefront.
 
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?:confused:
I was a bit surprised too, but often in these forums we make appeals to natural law which we consider binding on all humans, whether Catholic or not. I suppose one of the things we need to define is whether we are advocating for all people, or just Catholics.

I realize LJN21 mentioned he was using Thomas Aquinas definition of natural law, and not Hannah Arendt’s, but if we are going to discuss the welfare of all peoples perhaps we need to define our terms more precisely.
 
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…
Ricmat, I don’t think anyone here has denied that abstinence is the best form of HIV/AIDS prevention and that it should be promoted.
(BTW, kudos to Pres. Bush for requiring abstinence promotion in the various anti-HIV programs receiving U.S. funding.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top