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

[Contarini]

And sending mixed messages – “Don’t do that, but when you do it, wear these.”

When it comes to social policy, some such “mixed message” is inevitable, because policies have to take human sinfulness into account. Witness the general medieval view that prostitution should be legal. This never meant that prostitution was morally OK, but that tolerating it prevented a greater evil.

I see nothing contradictory about saying: ideally don’t have sex, but if you do then here is a way to make sure you don’t cause the sickness and death of your partner.

Edwin

 

[estesbob]

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.

Except we know that condoms dont always prevent HIV. By endorsing condom use for HIV positve peope you are promoting a gruesome game of Russian roulette. If you were told that when you had sex with your spouse there was 2 in 100 chance that they would die a slow painful death becuase of it would you continue to have sex with them?

The idea that using condoms promotes a greater good is simply not true.

 

[estesbob]

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.

Except we know that condoms dont always prevent HIV. By endorsing condom use for HIV positve peope you are promoting a gruesome game of Russian roulette. If you were told that when you had sex with your spouse there was 2 in 100 chance that they would die a slow painful death becuase of it would you continue to have sex with them?

The idea that using condoms promotes a greater good is simply not true.

 

[estesbob]

Please be absolutely sure that no one blames the Church - which needs as many members as possible.

Your concept of ‘misguided compassion’ is puzzling in the extreme: what would Christ have done? Left 200 million people to die?

And as I have pointed out in response to the idea that this is an ‘African thing’ that is completely erroneous.

Go Google UNAIDS.

On one hand you say dont blasme the Church , on the other hand you imply that they are impicit in the death of 200 million people(an absurd figure BTW),

The Church Christ founded and promised to guide disagrees with you and has for the last 2,000 years. Why should I accept your interperation of what Christ eould do over thiers?

 

[vern_humphrey]

When it comes to social policy, some such “mixed message” is inevitable, because policies have to take human sinfulness into account. Witness the general medieval view that prostitution should be legal. This never meant that prostitution was morally OK, but that tolerating it prevented a greater evil.

We no longer live in the Middle Ages, and the Church has a duty to both uphold morality and promte the behavior that prevents AIDS.

I see nothing contradictory about saying: ideally don’t have sex, but if you do then here is a way to **make sure **you don’t cause the sickness and death of your partner.

Edwin

The contradiction is in the two words bolded in your statement. Condoms do not **make sure **you don’t cause the sickness and death of your partner. Only abstinence can do that.

 

[Contarini]

We no longer live in the Middle Ages, and the Church has a duty to both uphold morality and promte the behavior that prevents AIDS.

“We no longer live in the Middle Ages” sounds like liberal chronological snobbery. Surely you do not think that ideas are discredited by the fact that they come from the Middle Ages? IF you are not saying that, I am not sure what your point is here. Frankly, when it comes to deciding what is contradictory, between you and St. Thomas Aquinas I’ll take the Dumb Ox any day.

I agree that our circumstances are different, and I apply the medieval principle differently. I think that prostitution is an evil that should not be tolerated, and no doubt St. Thomas would think the same of “unnatural” sexual intercourse. We have different standards for which evils are graver than which. But the principle remains valid: there is nothing contradictory about tolerating as a matter of social policy something that the Church considers to be intrinsically sinful.

The contradiction is in the two words bolded in your statement. Condoms do not **make sure **you don’t cause the sickness and death of your partner. Only abstinence can do that.

OK–“reduce the chance of,” then. I can’t see that this makes any difference. No one is arguing that condoms are better than abstinence, and I for one am not arguing that they should be promoted as good and legitimate options.

Edwin

 

[vern_humphrey]

“We no longer live in the Middle Ages” sounds like liberal chronological snobbery. Surely you do not think that ideas are discredited by the fact that they come from the Middle Ages? IF you are not saying that, I am not sure what your point is here. Frankly, when it comes to deciding what is contradictory, between you and St. Thomas Aquinas I’ll take the Dumb Ox any day.

My, aren’t we politically correct! We’ve just invented a new charge we can fling around, “chronological snobbery.”

I agree that our circumstances are different, and I apply the medieval principle differently.

No, you don’t – the Middle Ages had no science capable of understanding disease. We do. We know how AIDS is spread. And we know condoms can’t stop it.

"
I think that prostitution is an evil that should not be tolerated, and no doubt St. Thomas would think the same of “unnatural” sexual intercourse.

Next time you meet him, ask him.

But don’t presume to speak for him.

"
We have different standards for which evils are graver than which.

Huh?

" But the principle remains valid: there is nothing contradictory about tolerating as a matter of social policy something that the Church considers to be intrinsically sinful.

Leading people down the garden path, lying to them in a matter this grave, has no moral implications?

We know how to prevent the spread of AIDS. We have an obligation not to lead people to believe there is such a thing as “safe sex” outside of a faithful marriage.

"
OK–“reduce the chance of,” then. I can’t see that this makes any difference. No one is arguing that condoms are better than abstinence, and I for one am not arguing that they should be promoted as good and legitimate options.

But they are neither good nor morally legitimate. You are lying to people – in effect telling them there is such a thing as “safe sex” outside of a faithful marriage. And that’s a lie that has killed more people than the minnie ball.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

My, aren’t we politically correct! We’ve just invented a new charge we can fling around, “chronological snobbery.”

I did not invent this term–I derived it from Owen Barfield and C. S. Lewis. I find it odd that you dislike the term, since it is a criticism of liberal modernism.

No, you don’t – the Middle Ages had no science capable of understanding disease. We do. We know how AIDS is spread. And we know condoms can’t stop it.

I’m not sure where you are going with this. I have not claimed that the medieval Church agreed with me on the issue of condoms. As a matter of fact, the one person on this thread who is an expert on fighting AIDS (nerfherder) seems to think that condoms are effective. Frankly, I’ll believer her on that subject much sooner than you. However, that is irrelevant to the present question.

Next time you meet him, ask him.

But don’t presume to speak for him.

This is confusing. I am not speaking for St. Thomas. I am interpreting his writings. And my interpretation in this case works in your favor–I was making an admission that damages my case to some extent. I am aware that St. Thomas regarded “unnatural” sexual acts as extremely grave and probably would not put them in the category of immoral actions that should be tolerated for pragmatic reasons. Why you would quarrel with this assertion, which supports what you are arguing, is beyond me.

Leading people down the garden path, lying to them in a matter this grave, has no moral implications?

Who is advocating lying?

We know how to prevent the spread of AIDS. We have an obligation not to lead people to believe there is such a thing as “safe sex” outside of a faithful marriage.

A faithful marriage between two people who were previously virgins. Obviously two spouses who are faithful to each other after marriage can still give each other diseases acquired before marriage, or in a previous marriage (i.e., a chaste widow[er] whose previous spouse had acquired a disease might pass the disease on to a chaste second spouse).

I am not arguing with this. I completely agree that condoms should not be held up as the ideal and that people should be warned that abstinence is the only certain method.

However, it is also lying to say that condoms do nothing to prevent the spread of STDs.

Edwin

 

[LJN21]

That is indeed a worthy goal but we have to be realistic: sexual indiscretions have been a part of human life (even some of the noblest ones) since the dawn of time. People fall, they rise, they ask forgiveness.

Yes, but we are not animals we have control over our actions. We have control over our passions. That’s like saying well its not a good thing to kill someone but if you do it fast so there not in pain. To say well some times these people can’t control themselves is saying they are no better than an animal.

If you daughter or son came up to you and said ‘Hey, I’m going to have sex I can’t control my self,’ would you say, ‘Fine just use this condom?’

The whole premise is wrong anyway. Sex out side of marriage is a sin. Sex in Marriage where you have taken the procreative element of the act out is a inherently evil. Yes there are “rules” in the Church that can be “bent” for a greater good. None of these “bent rules” include a consequences that is inherently evil.

CCC 2363: The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses them and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of the marriage and the future of the family.
The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.

CCC 2366: Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, Which “is on the side of life” teaches that “each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life.” “This particular doctrine, expounded on the numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not brake between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”

 

[fix]

T
Are we saying that a woman must risk her life and the well-being of her children to fulfill her duties as wife if her husband sins (even once) and so brings HIV home to her? Worse yet for the spouse of someone who gets HIV in a way that is not sinful. If everybody in the world stopped having sex today, there would be still plenty of ways for HIV to spread: not the least of all because some are born with it.

I have been taught as a Catholic that God calls some to single life, some to religious and some to marriage. Where else in the course of history have vast numbers of married couples been called to lifelong abstinence? Is that in line with the teachings of the Church and according to natural law? Might that, if it were attempted at all, not lead to more temptation and mortal sin?

When engaging in a sexual act while separating the unitive and procreative elements, like a condom, one is not fulfulling any duty. In fact, it is nothing more than mutual masturbation.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I did not invent this term–I derived it from Owen Barfield and C. S. Lewis. I find it odd that you dislike the term, since it is a criticism of liberal modernism.

Regardless of who coined it, as you use it it’s a example of holier-than-thou Political Correctness.

I’m not sure where you are going with this. I have not claimed that the medieval Church agreed with me on the issue of condoms.

Then why did you bring it up?

As a matter of fact, the one person on this thread who is an expert on fighting AIDS (nerfherder) seems to think that condoms are effective. Frankly, I’ll believer her on that subject much sooner than you. However, that is irrelevant to the present question.

Claims to be an expert. Let her post her track record – how many cases has she presented?

Or maybe you’re correct – she “seems to think” it works. With no proof.

This is confusing. I am not speaking for St. Thomas.

Then why did you bring him up?

I am interpreting his writings.

Which is different from “speaking for him,” how?

And my interpretation in this case works in your favor–I was making an admission that damages my case to some extent. I am aware that St. Thomas regarded “unnatural” sexual acts as extremely grave and probably would not put them in the category of immoral actions that should be tolerated for pragmatic reasons. Why you would quarrel with this assertion, which supports what you are arguing, is beyond me.

I quarrel with you attempts to inject extraneous matter into the debate.

Who is advocating lying?

Who is it that is advocating handing out condoms and telling people that using them amountsto “safe sex?”

A faithful marriage between two people who were previously virgins. Obviously two spouses who are faithful to each other after marriage can still give each other diseases acquired before marriage, or in a previous marriage (i.e., a chaste widow[er] whose previous spouse had acquired a disease might pass the disease on to a chaste second spouse).

And lightning can come down and strike you through your keyboard, too - but it doesn’t happen often enough to worry about.

I am not arguing with this. I completely agree that condoms should not be held up as the ideal and that people should be warned that abstinence is the only certain method.

Then why “hold them up” at all?

However, it is also lying to say that condoms do nothing to prevent the spread of STDs.

Edwin

It is if the STD in question is 100% fatal and uncurable.

 

[Eddy]

Claims to be an expert. Let her post her track record – how many cases has she presented?

She’s an international consultant looking at the impact of HIV/AIDS. And her posts show she has far more on the ground awareness of the realities of HIV/AIDS than anyone else posting on this thread. Acknowledging that would require, um, humility?

I have stepped back from the debate. The reality is that this is primarily an apologetical website. Apologetics=defence. When people get defensive they are not generally seeking an open and engaged debate, since their primary purpose is to defend their pre-existing ideas.

I read this in the editorial of a Catholic magazine from last week relating to the Pope’s visit to Brazil. It seems to have a lot to say to the debate on the Church’s attitude to the tragedy of HIV/AIDS:

This is another example of a basic structural problem in the modern Catholic Church: ideas and insights flow downwards from the top easily enough, but move hardly at all in an upwards direction. The result is a longer and longer list of issues where the periphery has difficulty with what the centre is saying. Eventually the two perceptions of what needs to be done have little in common: the leaders have become unharnessed from the led. Contrary to his former incarnation as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Pope Benedict is acquiring a reputation as a good listener. It is not so much by what he says, but what he hears - and attends to - that his visit to Brazil may in the long term be judged. Rome does not have all of the answers. Some may even lie in Brazil.

 

[LJN21]

She’s an international consultant looking at the impact of HIV/AIDS. And her posts show she has far more on the ground awareness of the realities of HIV/AIDS than anyone else posting on this thread. Acknowledging that would require, um, humility?

What about the realities of the constant teaching of the church on the twofold propose of sex?

What about the realities of the effects of sin in peoples lives?

What about the reality that weather we like it or not we all have a 100% chance of death. Or purpose here is to get to heaven and take as many as we can with us. We do not achieve that by recommending people to sin.

I have stepped back from the debate. The reality is that this is primarily an apologetical website. Apologetics=defence. When people get defensive they are not generally seeking an open and engaged debate, since their primary purpose is to defend their pre-existing ideas.

I read this in the editorial of a Catholic magazine from last week relating to the Pope’s visit to Brazil. It seems to have a lot to say to the debate on the Church’s attitude to the tragedy of HIV/AIDS:

This is another example of a basic structural problem in the modern Catholic Church: ideas and insights flow downwards from the top easily enough, but move hardly at all in an upwards direction. The result is a longer and longer list of issues where the periphery has difficulty with what the centre is saying. Eventually the two perceptions of what needs to be done have little in common: the leaders have become unharnessed from the led. Contrary to his former incarnation as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Pope Benedict is acquiring a reputation as a good listener. It is not so much by what he says, but what he hears - and attends to - that his visit to Brazil may in the long term be judged. Rome does not have all of the answers. Some may even lie in Brazil.

So is the Pope (and the constant, persistent teaching of the church) not the voice of Christ Church on Earth?

Should the Catholic Church be a Democracy?

Of course the Church is “Top Down”… that is the very nature of the Catholic Church and why its headed by the Vicar of Christ.

 

[vern_humphrey]

She’s an international consultant looking at the impact of HIV/AIDS. And her posts show she has far more on the ground awareness of the realities of HIV/AIDS than anyone else posting on this thread. Acknowledging that would require, um, humility?

I repeat, let her post her track record. Let her quantify how much AIDS she has prevented.

The world is full of “activists” and “consultants” who claim to be able to solve this problem or that. Let them prove their “solutions” work.

I have stepped back from the debate. The reality is that this is primarily an apologetical website. Apologetics=defence. When people get defensive they are not generally seeking an open and engaged debate, since their primary purpose is to defend their pre-existing ideas.

Sounds to me like you’re projecting.

I read this in the editorial of a Catholic magazine from last week relating to the Pope’s visit to Brazil. It seems to have a lot to say to the debate on the Church’s attitude to the tragedy of HIV/AIDS:

Did he start throwing condoms out of the Popemobile?

This is another example of a basic structural problem in the modern Catholic Church: ideas and insights flow downwards from the top easily enough, but move hardly at all in an upwards direction.

Do you think God is an elected official, and we can vote Him out of office if we don’t like the way He runs His universe?

The result is a longer and longer list of issues where the periphery has difficulty with what the centre is saying.

Then the periphery should pray for understanding – not demand the Church change her traditional teaching.

Eventually the two perceptions of what needs to be done have little in common: the leaders have become unharnessed from the led.

The led should pray for the grace to come back into the fold.

Contrary to his former incarnation as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Pope Benedict is acquiring a reputation as a good listener.

Contrary to the propaganda against him, he always has been a good listener.

It is not so much by what he says, but what he hears - and attends to - that his visit to Brazil may in the long term be judged. Rome does not have all of the answers. Some may even lie in Brazil.

So the Papacy should move to Brazil?

 

[TheApologist]

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.

Sorry, I didn’t see this until now…

I wasn’t talking about the sin of premarital sex. I was talking about the sin of contraceptive use.
The end of having unitive marital sex without(maybe) spreading disease does NOT justify using contraceptives.

So I stated…what’s better…Sinning with contraceptives while possibly spreading HIV or not sinning through abstinence while almost 99.9999999999999999999999 percent not spreading HIV(maybe 0.000000000000000000000001 possible to spread through careless treatment of a bloody wound).

Let’s see…A bad means to reach a good goal…or a good means to reach a good goal. I’d side with the Church anyday.

 

[vern_humphrey]

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.

Wow!

If I had AIDS I would hardly expost my wife to that disease, merely for my own pleasure! The failure rate of condoms is such that eventually she will be infected if I do that.

I would not risk her life on the proposition that somehow condoms can surely prevent the transmission of AIDS.

 

[Contarini]

Regardless of who coined it, as you use it it’s a example of holier-than-thou Political Correctness.

Nothing of the kind. I was simply saying that pointing out the obvious fact that we are no longer in the Middle Ages does not constitute a refutation of a medieval idea. It is not wrong just because it is medieval. You actually have to show that it is wrong.

Then why did you bring it up?

Because it is a relevant moral principle–some sins have to be tolerated as a matter of law and social policy, in order to prevent worse evils. Augustine and Aquinas both thought this. These are important authorities for me, and I would have thought that they were for you as well (but apparently you think that citing them is an example of “holier-than-thou Political Correctness”–surely the weirdest definition of political correctness I have ever heard!).

Claims to be an expert. Let her post her track record – how many cases has she presented?

How many have you? The point is that she makes fighting AIDS her life’s work. She is more likely to know something about the subject than either you or I.

Then why did you bring him up?

Which is different from “speaking for him,” how?

Are you saying that citing any thinker from the past is illegitimate? Just how is tradition relevant, in your view? I do not follow you at all, and I think you are flailing around desperately to avoid dealing with the argument.

I quarrel with you attempts to inject extraneous matter into the debate.

It’s not extraneous at all. It’s the basic issue at stake. You and others here are assuming that if we tolerate condom distribution we are saying that either sexual immorality or artificial birth control or both are OK. I am pointing out that there is a longstanding tradition in the Church to the effect that you can tolerate something socially while condemning it morally. You are desperately trying to avoid dealing with this issue, because it complicates the simplistic argument you are making. IT’s “extraneous” only in the sense that it works against the point you want to make!

Who is it that is advocating handing out condoms and telling people that using them amountsto “safe sex?”

I certainly am not. Nerfherder, are you advocating telling people that sex with condoms is completely safe?

And lightning can come down and strike you through your keyboard, too - but it doesn’t happen often enough to worry about.

Once is enough to make the point as a matter of principle (and the person to whom it happened would certainly worry). However, in a society with high mortality this scenario might well happen quite frequently.

Then why “hold them up” at all?

Because they are a second line of defense for the cases where people’s passions get the better of them.

It is if the STD in question is 100% fatal and uncurable.

I don’t follow. It is what? I said that telling people condoms don’t reduce risk is lying. You are saying that telling people this is lying if the disease is incurable? I would agree, which is why I think this kind of anti-condom propaganda is immoral. People should be told that condoms are not the ideal answer, but they should not be given the impression that they make no difference.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[LJN21]

Wow!

If I had AIDS I would hardly expost my wife to that disease, merely for my own pleasure! The failure rate of condoms is such that eventually she will be infected if I do that.

I would not risk her life on the proposition that somehow condoms can surely prevent the transmission of AIDS.

Agreed!

This whole argument just blows my mind and truly shows a lack of understanding of the true meaning of human sexuality. It completely takes away the ideas of unselfishly giving of oneself fully to their spouse and trades it for recreation. It takes a the beauty of human sexuality and makes us no better than a common animal.

 

[estesbob]

This is another example of a basic structural problem in the modern Catholic Church: ideas and insights flow downwards from the top easily enough, but move hardly at all in an upwards direction. The result is a longer and longer list of issues where the periphery has difficulty with what the centre is saying.

So we should become more like the Episcopal Church?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Nothing of the kind. I was simply saying that pointing out the obvious fact that we are no longer in the Middle Ages does not constitute a refutation of a medieval idea. .

Nonsense – you were accusing me of “timeism” or something like that.

And since you advanced the argument, the burden of proof is on you. You have to show that it applies – and you’ve failed.

Because it is a relevant moral principle–some sins have to be tolerated as a matter of law and social policy, in order to prevent worse evils. Augustine and Aquinas both thought this.

And did they go around handing out condoms?

You say they support your position – but offer no proof.

You say we can take examples from the Ancient World and the Middle Ages and apply them to this issue – but offer no proof.

These are important authorities for me,

Because you think you can twist them to attack the Church’s teaching.

and I would have thought that they were for you as well

You put your spin on them, and I do not accept your spin as valid.

How many have you?

So far, none of my catechumens have AIDS.

The point is that she makes fighting AIDS her life’s work.

In other words, she makes a good living off it.

She is more likely to know something about the subject than either you or I.

Not when she goes around leading people down the garden path of “safe sex means use a condom.”

Are you saying that citing any thinker from the past is illegitimate?

When you put your spin on it, it isn’t a “thinker from the past” who is speaking – it’s you.

Just how is tradition relevant, in your view?

It is relevant when the Church uses it in matters of Faith and Morals – not when you use it to claim the Church is wrong.

I do not follow you at all, and I think you are flailing around desperately to avoid dealing with the argument.

What argument is that? Condoms do not make for “safe sex.” Only abstinence can halt the spread of AIDS.

It’s not extraneous at all. It’s the basic issue at stake. You and others here are assuming that if we tolerate condom distribution we are saying that either sexual immorality or artificial birth control or both are OK.

In this case, you are saying only that sexual immorality is OK – I didn’t notice anyone beating the drum for artificial birth control.

I am pointing out that there is a longstanding tradition in the Church to the effect that you can tolerate something socially while condemning it morally. You are desperately trying to avoid dealing with this issue, because it complicates the simplistic argument you are making. IT’s “extraneous” only in the sense that it works against the point you want to make!

Can you cite the paragraph in the Catechism that says, “Condoms prevent AIDS, so it’s okay to use them while having homosexual relations?”

I certainly am not. Nerfherder, are you advocating telling people that sex with condoms is completely safe?

And yet that’s what you are doing. What other message are they to take from your position?

Once is enough to make the point as a matter of principle (and the person to whom it happened would certainly worry). However, in a society with high mortality this scenario might well happen quite frequently.

And yet you’re still at your keyboard.

Because they are a second line of defense for the cases where people’s passions get the better of them.

Those passions are more likely to “get the better of them” when “experts” tell them using condoms is “safe sex.”

I don’t follow. It is what? I said that telling people condoms don’t reduce risk is lying.

Because they** don’t** reduce risk – any risk reduction from a single sex act is more than offset by the increased sexual activity resulting from a false confidence in “safe sex.”

You are saying that telling people this is lying if the disease is incurable? I would agree, which is why I think this kind of anti-condom propaganda is immoral.

So you would tell them to go ahead and do their thing – the condom will protect you?

People should be told that condoms are not the ideal answer, but they should not be given the impression that they make no difference.

People should be told that condoms are not an answer, period. And they should not be given the impression that using condoms is “safe sex.”