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

[Dale_M]

On the other hand, sin does seem to carry with it its own punishment.

Sometimes. Unfortunately, all too often virtue is “punished” too. I don’t think we can look to some kind of karmic wheel of justice in this world.

 

[Dale_M]

Does Christ’s healing ministry include encouraging sin?

I think the story in Mark 2:23-27 shows there are time when the Law is to be set aside in promotion of a greater good.

 

[ricmat]

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?

1. If for no other reason that condoms tear, they aren’t 100% effective. To say that they’re e.g. 90% effective (not sure what number you actually use), so sex is now safe is ridiculous.
2. It seems we’re discussing 2 options, telling people to abstain or telling people to use condoms. If your HIV prevention strategy is to tell people to abstain (e.g. NOT sleep around), then you’re giving them a tool that works. Condoms are widely touted as the solution to “safe sex.” This is totally independent of HIV prevention. Many interpret this “solution” as meaning that they can now sleep around with whomever they want, whenever they want with no ill effects. I teach confirmation classes to 15-17 year olds, and this is the message these kids get from secular schools and the secular press, and Hollywood.
3. Many STDs require only contact in the genital area, not full insertion to be transmitted. Condoms are irrelevant in these cases. You look it up.

I know that we “abstinence promoters” do indeed have compassion for those that have contracted AIDS and other STD’s, and have great admiration for those that minister to them.

What is sad is that the commonly accepted solution is actually part of the problem. This same solution is also a major part of the whole culture of death problem - “If I can be the arbiter of when human life begins, then I can also be the arbiter of when human life ends.” Abortion, ESCR, euthanasia, it’s all tied together.

 

[estesbob]

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…

If you want to see the proper emphasis of Healing vs sin look at

Matthew 9

1Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. 2Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven."

3At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!”
4Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” 7And the man got up and went home. 8When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.

=====================

Note Jesus’s priorities-being without sin is is more important than healing.

 

[estesbob]

I think the story in Mark 2:23-27 shows there are time when the Law is to be set aside in promotion of a greater good.

And who determines the greater good? You? I think we should leave it up to the Church who obviously disagrees with you.

 

[goofyjim]

There are no wretched of the earth unless you want to include every sinner. Well that covers all of us. Goodnight.

 

[Dale_M]

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.

Vern, I don’t think the situation is nearly as simple as you describe. If you ask Nerfherder for a copy of Fr. Kelly’s paper you will see he is calling for more than the Church giving a green light to condoms… he is calling for the Church to take a more active leadership role in the HIV pandemic.

The Church’s servant role in caring for those stricken with the infection is well known. Approximately 25% of global care to those with HIV/AIDS is from Church organizations or Catholic NGOs. But it has roles beyond that which it hasn’t fully realized.

Consider its role as a Protector of Morals. Fr. Kelly writes:
“the Church likewise speaks out strongly against adultery, fornication and lustful thoughts. It also speaks out against the debasement of girls and women which these practices so frequently imply. The Church further speaks out in defence of the right to life and the sacredness of life. Hence it condemns abortions which are deliberately sought in order to terminate the life of an unborn child. Also, when speaking about landmarks in the human and Christian vision of marriage, it states that “every action which … proposes … to render procreation (conception) impossible” is illicit (Humanae Vitae, §14).”

These are all important values in which the the world community needs the Church’s leadership. I don’t think anyone here is asking for anything different. Yes, some of us may think the Church leadership should re-visit the issue of condoms to prevent HIV transmission, but doesn’t mean we reject the idea that artificial birth control is wrong.

The Church can especially do good in promoting the value of abstinence. Surely this is something we can all agree on.

I don’t think this thread is about an either/or choice.

 

[Dale_M]

And who determines the greater good? You? I think we should leave it up to the Church who obviously disagrees with you.

How about leaving it up to the Holy Spirit? After all, there are quite a few bishops and cardinals who are not satisfied with the teaching about HIV and condoms.

I think this is an issue which needs our prayers.

 

[TheApologist]

How about leaving it up to the Holy Spirit? After all, there are quite a few bishops and cardinals who are not satisfied with the teaching about HIV and condoms.

I think this is an issue which needs our prayers.

Honestly, what do you think better? Not spreading disease while not sinning or maybe spreading disease while sinning?

Please look up the definition of “intrinsically evil.” It is NEVER acceptable for people to do intrinsically evil things to get a little good.

Does “the end doesn’t justify the means” ring a bell? It’s true in this situation as well.

 

[goofyjim]

How about leaving it up to the Holy Spirit? After all, there are quite a few bishops and cardinals who are not satisfied with the teaching about HIV and condoms.

I think this is an issue which needs our prayers.

My prayers have led me to accept the truth about the failure of condoms in preventing the spread of AIDS. If there are bishops and cardinals who are not satisfied witht this they also need to accept proper medical education. I know young kids who are being misled, especially one twenty three year old I met a year ago. First he said you can’t go through life without sex-lie #1. Then he said he accepted that one is born homosexual-lie #2. Enough of these lies and we will only see more contract these fatal diseases. I just tried to support this young gentleman in chastity but he no longer keeps in touch so I will never know where his life will lead. I enrolled him perpetually with the Miraculous Medal Assocaition and also enrolled him with FOSS so he is benefitting from many masses and the prayers of the souls in purgatory.

 

[Dale_M]

My prayers have led me to accept the truth about the failure of condoms in preventing the spread of AIDS.

My uninformed feeling is that you are right. Condoms will not stop the spread of HIV at a population level. Condoms are only effective at a personal level. We need to change behavior through abstinence education and by elevating the status of women (among many other tasks) to make a difference at the population level.

I just tried to support this young gentleman in chastity but he no longer keeps in touch so I will never know where his life will lead. I enrolled him perpetually with the Miraculous Medal Assocaition and also enrolled him with FOSS so he is benefitting from many masses and the prayers of the souls in purgatory.

Bless you for caring, for reaching out, and for trying to make a difference. The world needs a lot more people like you.

 

[mark_a]

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.

That’s my signature. Maybe I should change the color or font.

As for the other quotes, there is plenty of information about how to have an active, “responsible”, non-married, non-monogomas, homosexual, gang-sex, beast-sex, peep-sex without spreading disease.

But its just not the Church’s responsibility to teach these things. It is the Church’s responsibility to teach God’s truth, that these things will fry your immortal soul. Condom or no condom.

 

[goofyjim]

That’s my signature. Maybe I should change the color or font.

As for the other quotes, there is plenty of information about how to have an active, “responsible”, non-married, non-monogomas, homosexual, gang-sex, beast-sex, peep-sex without spreading disease.

But its just not the Church’s responsibility to teach these things. It is the Church’s responsibility to teach God’s truth, that these things will fry your immortal soul. Condom or no condom.

Yet I remember a Lutheran minister who said one could go to hell just for being same sex attracted. Utter nonsense.

 

[estesbob]

How about leaving it up to the Holy Spirit? After all, there are quite a few bishops and cardinals who are not satisfied with the teaching about HIV and condoms.

I think this is an issue which needs our prayers.

I have. you are the one who is going against the teachings of the chruch.

 

[nerfherder]

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?:

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)

By quoting this point, you have confirmed the Jesuit’s point exactly: it is lawful to tolerate the lesser moral evil - one form of contraception - in order to promote a greater good - preservation of life by using a condom to prevent HIV.

 

[nerfherder]

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

We know that many do not comply with the Church’s instruction in this regard. Women are particularly concerned to stay alive for the sake of their children. They have seen what happens to children who have lost both parents and are orphaned. It is not only their own lives at stake, but that of their children.

By the way, there is a female condom now available, but expensive.

 

[seekerz]

Honestly, what do you think better? Not spreading disease while not sinning or maybe spreading disease while sinning?

Really, I’m confused by this statement. What sin are we talking about? Is it sex? Maybe those simplifying the equation so glibly should remember that we have to factor in married couples.

I don’t seriously think that anyone is calling for unmarried people to be allowed to use condoms to prevent HIV transmission while they sleep around.

We can either present slogans and trite remarks or we can carefully analyze the moral issues surrounding the AIDS pandemic.

 

[nerfherder]

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.

Of course it is relevant! Perhaps you did not read carefully. What is true is that by opposing the use of condoms, the Church has put many at-risk individuals at great risk because of their informed conscience as Catholics. Your sense of the discussion is skewed somewhat with regar to the underlined sentence.

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.

Of course it is having an effect! Many people are committed to abstinence and to monogamy, but others are not. A man who fools around may infect his wife, who is the primary care-giver for her children. If she dies, they may die with her, or live a life of extreme disadvantage, particularly as socialisation is concerned.

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.

It may be that the Church will have fewer members than it does now: people are dying in droves out there, many of them Catholic.

I think answers to your common misunderstanding are contained in other postings. You have perhaps not understood the intent of the discussion wrt underlined sentences. I have tried to add my bit.

But you need to be very clear about one thing: this pandemic is in no way confined to any one region of the world, and it is moving at a rate of knots globally, and the virus that transmits it is able to mutate to the extent that it remains virulent in whatever conditions it lives in, regardless of anti-viral drugs being used (in the last couple of years, out of the 30 for which the prion has been loosed on the world).

I have seen the massive increases in Asia, the Caribbean, Russia, other parts of the former USSR. China and India are particularly at risk.

And do you know what? Spread in China is not now principally the result of sexuality. At least fifteen million people in Yenan Province are infected, most of them because of unsterilised equipment used to take blood from them, which is then sold to buy fertiliser for their crops. In Asia generally, some governments have kept infection rates down by targetting prostitutes, men who have sex with men, and drug abusers. That worked for a while. But of course people who consort with prostitutes are at risk, many homosexuals may be bisexual and drug abusers have sex with wives etc. That has meant that within the last ten years, we have seen a dramatic increase in HIV infection in the general population, carried there by prostitutes, bisexuals and abusers. China prefers to hide its statistics, and has in the past jailed those who published them.

India is of particular concern because although ‘only’ 2 per cent of the population may be infected, that is still 2 per cent of over a billion people, and it is believed there are more people infected there than in any other country, including South Africa - which has one of the highest infection rates in Africa.

I hope this helps answer your original question.

 

[nerfherder]

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

Many people, both men and women, now carry condoms as a matter of course. They are handed out free, with subsidy by international and national aid agencies at various points and in hospitals. Some agencies find it useful to sell them at the tuck shop in school grounds, when kids come to buy cokes.

With regard to your African colleague: this raises the issue of the conflict between ‘sexual morality’ taught by government, schools and universities, health ministries who have taken on the abstinence rule. Or who promote ABC: Be abstinent until ready to be married; be faithful to one partner; and if you will not, cannot, or forget, then use a condom.

But set against this valid health message are the underlying traditions that inform and direct each individual’s behaviour. In Africa, women are generally taught to be submissive to males, and sex is very very rarely discussed between adults and children. That is why the attempt to teach HIV/AIDS in schools has by and large failed: teachers were too embarassed to do the job. It was against their cultural tradition. Second, in Africa, men are taught that they had the right to be polygamous, and now that that has been banned, many still practice it, while many others take several partners. It is their right; and it protects their health - they believe. Among OvaHerero and OvaHimba in northern Namibia, children are fully sexually active by the time they are four years old - part of games playing, imitating life where goats, chickens, cows and parents are seen to be having intercourse. Where do you go from there?

So Western-style teaching is in every macro- and micro-culture up against traditional behaviours and beliefs. And yes, that is why behaviour change is essential, and yes, that is why it is going to take a very long time.

 

[nerfherder]

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.

So what do good Catholic kids who are sent to Iraq to fight a war that cannot be won do about their morals, and particularly the commandment about not killing? Is this a relevant question here?