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

[LJN21]

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!).

For starters please show me any place where either of them teaches natural death is evil.

Also please show me an example of where either of them taught that you could actively engage in something intrinsically evil with a good outcome.

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

Wheres the second line of defense of their imortal soul or the one for the soul of the person that told them condom use was okay.

If you knew that eating sugar would kill you, would you still eat the sugar?

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.

Anti-condom propaganda? The teaching of the church on the purpose of sex is anti-condom propaganda?

Natural Death is not immoral.

Having HIV/AIDS is not immoral.

Martial sex open to life is not immoral.

Marital sex that is not open to life destroys the marital act and makes it masturbation and is immoral.

If you are not open to life you have no right to sex even in marriage. You can not be open to life and use a condom, even if you think your trying to save a life. The whole idea of a condom in marriage is directly opposed to the very essence of marriage.

 

[vern_humphrey]

So we should become more like the Episcopal Church?

Then we can have bishops who live in “loving relationships” with their male partners, and call the rest of us “breeders.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

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.

You may recall people condemned the Crocodile Hunter for holding his little son near the crocodile tank. Yet others think it is perfectly acceptable to put your wife at far greater risk.

 

[goofyjim]

For starters please show me any place where either of them teaches natural death is evil.

Also please show me an example of where either of them taught that you could actively engage in something intrinsically evil with a good outcome.

Wheres the second line of defense of their imortal soul or the one for the soul of the person that told them condom use was okay.

If you knew that eating sugar would kill you, would you still eat the sugar?

Anti-condom propaganda? The teaching of the church on the purpose of sex is anti-condom propaganda?

Natural Death is not immoral.

Having HIV/AIDS is not immoral.

Martial sex open to life is not immoral.

Marital sex that is not open to life destroys the marital act and makes it masturbation and is immoral.

If you are not open to life you have no right to sex even in marriage. You can not be open to life and use a condom, even if you think your trying to save a life. The whole idea of a condom in marriage is directly opposed to the very essence of marriage.

I would like to add that being homosexual is also not immoral, only acting on it is.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I would like to add that being homosexual is also not immoral, only acting on it is.

You are absolutely right, Jim.

Having an attraction to the same sex (or to the opposite sex), to alcohol, drugs, or excessive anger is not wrong. Acting on those attractions is wrong. And the solution for those of us who have one or more of those problems is the same – prayer and abstinence.

 

[estesbob]

Then we can have bishops who live in “loving relationships” with their male partners, and call the rest of us “breeders.”

Not if we used condoma…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Not if we used condoma…

At least not the ribbed, glow-in-the-dark version with the propellor on the end.

 

[seekerz]

You may recall people condemned the Crocodile Hunter for holding his little son near the crocodile tank. Yet others think it is perfectly acceptable to put your wife at far greater risk.

“If it were my wife…” statements are not really germane to the discussion.

We are personalizing the issue when the original poster, I believe was referring to a particular group of susceptible people in particular geographic areas with particular cultures.

Doesn’t the Church ever consider cultural/social factors in deciding on what to allow? Look up what happens in polygamous cultures when people convert to Catholicism.

If you happen to be married to a truly Catholic spouse who is a role model of what a husband/wife is supposed to be then …
…get down on your knees 24 times a day and praise God, because many, many people are not. Their partners still have to put up with them though, unless they are able/willing to leave. In some cultures that is just not as easy as tapping a keyboard and posting high ideals on a forum.

Don’t get me wrong - it’s great to strive for perfection and to hold up the ideals of our faith. At the same time we have to consider the various conditions that some people have to live under. We have to consider that in some cultures, a woman would rather choose the risk of death from AIDS than be the social outcast that a woman without a husband is treated as. Is it really okay with us if she chooses death?

Granted, condoms are not 100% effective against AIDS, maybe their effectiveness isn’t even close to that, but if they could save one out of 10,000 isn’t a human life worth that? Again I refer to the principle of double effect (condoms for preservation of life, not for contraception as the primary intent) which I understand our Church does not apply to this situation, but which is an area that could be looked at again.

As in a previous post, I will suggest that an acceptable course to all would be to advocate for the same high-quality care in those areas of the world that in certain circumstances allow some couples in the West to have normal, procreative sexual relations even when one partner is infected.

To just ask married couples to refrain from sex forever (while continuing to live in the same house!) is a goal that’s simply not achievable and I believe even Scripture recognizes that. We are told that remaining single is not everyone’s calling and that married people should not withold themselves form each other except for certain periods agreed upon by them.

Just as an aside, do we really have to deliver such low blows in putting forward our points of view? Chastity is a great idea to push , but charity is even easier to practice.

 

[nerfherder]

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

Then why did you bring it up?

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.

Then why did you bring him up?

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

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

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

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

Then why “hold them up” at all?

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

What you like to know about my track record, or would you like me to send you my curriculum vitae? Or go Google Carol Coombe - the first 30 pages - for publications, activities, speeches, reports, policy forumlation, travel throughout Africa and Asia. Now, what is your question?
Or would you like to know about Fr K’s achievements and awards?

 

[goofyjim]

“If it were my wife…” statements are not really germane to the discussion.

We are personalizing the issue when the original poster, I believe was referring to a particular group of susceptible people in particular geographic areas with particular cultures.

Doesn’t the Church ever consider cultural/social factors in deciding on what to allow? Look up what happens in polygamous cultures when people convert to Catholicism.

If you happen to be married to a truly Catholic spouse who is a role model of what a husband/wife is supposed to be then …
…get down on your knees 24 times a day and praise God, because many, many people are not. Their partners still have to put up with them though, unless they are able/willing to leave. In some cultures that is just not as easy as tapping a keyboard and posting high ideals on a forum.

Don’t get me wrong - it’s great to strive for perfection and to hold up the ideals of our faith. At the same time we have to consider the various conditions that some people have to live under. We have to consider that in some cultures, a woman would rather choose the risk of death from AIDS than be the social outcast that a woman without a husband is treated as. Is it really okay with us if she chooses death?

Granted, condoms are not 100% effective against AIDS, maybe their effectiveness isn’t even close to that, but if they could save one out of 10,000 isn’t a human life worth that? Again I refer to the principle of double effect (condoms for preservation of life, not for contraception as the primary intent) which I understand our Church does not apply to this situation, but which is an area that could be looked at again.

As in a previous post, I will suggest that an acceptable course to all would be to advocate for the same high-quality care in those areas of the world that in certain circumstances allow some couples in the West to have normal, procreative sexual relations even when one partner is infected.

To just ask married couples to refrain from sex forever (while continuing to live in the same house!) is a goal that’s simply not achievable and I believe even Scripture recognizes that. We are told that remaining single is not everyone’s calling and that married people should not withold themselves form each other except for certain periods agreed upon by them.

Just as an aside, do we really have to deliver such low blows in putting forward our points of view? Chastity is a great idea to push , but charity is even easier to practice.

But is it really to charity to allow condom use which will not, I repeat, not prevent the transmission of HIV. This has been documented and brought up in this thread. When charity allows for people to continue to contract fatal viruses, I’ll reconsider my opinion.

 

[estesbob]

“If it were my wife…” statements are not really germane to the discussion.

So Africans are savages that cant control their urges like we can?

Doesn’t the Church ever consider cultural/social factors in deciding on what to allow? Look up what happens in polygamous cultures when people convert to Catholicism.

.

No the Church, thankfully, never promotes situation ethics.

 

[estesbob]

What you like to know about my track record, or would you like me to send you my curriculum vitae? Or go Google Carol Coombe - the first 30 pages - for publications, activities, speeches, reports, policy forumlation, travel throughout Africa and Asia. Now, what is your question?
Or would you like to know about Fr K’s achievements and awards?

I did read some of your stuff. I was especially itrigued how you handled Ugandas sucess-failing to mention their focus on monogamy and abstinence-instead you repeatedly said “we just dont know”(or words to that effect) what caused the drop. The drop was from a 30% infection rate to a 10% infection rate, I beleive. Condoms were not a major facet of their program,IIRC

I know that you would be drummed out of the HIV action Community if you dared suggest that Condoms might not be the best way to stop the spread of AIDS, HIV prevention is so riddled by political correctness it is no wonder they have such a hard time fighting this disease.

Fr K does not speak for the Catholic Church-besides he’s a Jesuit-that makes everything he says suspect!

 

[vern_humphrey]

“If it were my wife…” statements are not really germane to the discussion.

So we should encourage people to do to their wives what I would not do to my wife?

We are personalizing the issue when the original poster, I believe was referring to a particular group of susceptible people in particular geographic areas with particular cultures.

When we talk about how people have irresistable cravings and so on, we are personalizing the issue.

"
Doesn’t the Church ever consider cultural/social factors in deciding on what to allow? Look up what happens in polygamous cultures when people convert to Catholicism.

How is that relevant?

"
If you happen to be married to a truly Catholic spouse who is a role model of what a husband/wife is supposed to be then …
…get down on your knees 24 times a day and praise God, because many, many people are not. Their partners still have to put up with them though, unless they are able/willing to leave. In some cultures that is just not as easy as tapping a keyboard and posting high ideals on a forum.

And that justifies risking their lives on a torn or faulty condom?

"
Don’t get me wrong - it’s great to strive for perfection and to hold up the ideals of our faith. At the same time we have to consider the various conditions that some people have to live under. We have to consider that in some cultures, a woman would rather choose the risk of death from AIDS than be the social outcast that a woman without a husband is treated as. Is it really okay with us if she chooses death?

If we are going to let her** choose** death, we should make sure it is an informed choice – and not tell her a condom will make it “safe.”

"
Granted, condoms are not 100% effective against AIDS, maybe their effectiveness isn’t even close to that, but if they could save one out of 10,000 isn’t a human life worth that?

And with the increased sexual activity, it will take ten, twenty, a thousand times that many.

It is specious to say a condom will save a life – because eventually it will not save the user’s life.

"
Again I refer to the principle of double effect (condoms for preservation of life, not for contraception as the primary intent) which I understand our Church does not apply to this situation, but which is an area that could be looked at again.

The “double effect” here is bad on both counts – first of all, using condoms encourages dangerous behavior and and secondly ultimately the user will contract the disease.

"
As in a previous post, I will suggest that an acceptable course to all would be to advocate for the same high-quality care in those areas of the world that in certain circumstances allow some couples in the West to have normal, procreative sexual relations even when one partner is infected.

No one objects to the Corporal Works of Mercy – caring for the sick. What we object to is leading people down the garden path with the sirien song of “safe sex.”

"
To just ask married couples to refrain from sex forever (while continuing to live in the same house!) is a goal that’s simply not achievable and I believe even Scripture recognizes that.

If we tell people that wearing a condom is “safe sex” it certainly isn’t achievable.

But if we’re up-front and do all we can to discourage illicit sex – instead of encouraging it, we can make progress.

"
We are told that remaining single is not everyone’s calling and that married people should not withold themselves form each other except for certain periods agreed upon by them.

Are we told it is a virtue to infect one’s partner with AIDS?

"
Just as an aside, do we really have to deliver such low blows in putting forward our points of view?

There are valid medical reasons for abstaining from sex within marriage. Would you have a husband have sex with a wife who was on life support?

Chastity is a great idea to push , but charity is even easier to practice.

It isn’t charity to lead people down the garden path to the sirien song of “safe sex.”

 

[LJN21]

“If it were my wife…” statements are not really germane to the discussion.

We are personalizing the issue when the original poster, I believe was referring to a particular group of susceptible people in particular geographic areas with particular cultures.

Geographic areas and cultures does not change intrinsic evil.

Doesn’t the Church ever consider cultural/social factors in deciding on what to allow? Look up what happens in polygamous cultures when people convert to Catholicism.

CCC2387: The predicament of a man who, desiring to convert to the Gospel, is obliged to repudiate one or more wives with whom he has shared years of conjugal life, is understandable. However polygamy is not in accord with the moral law. “[Conjugal] communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive.” The Christian who has previously lived in polygamy has a grave duty in justice to honor the obligations contracted in regard to this former wives and his children.

If you happen to be married to a truly Catholic spouse who is a role model of what a husband/wife is supposed to be then …
…get down on your knees 24 times a day and praise God, because many, many people are not. Their partners still have to put up with them though, unless they are able/willing to leave. In some cultures that is just not as easy as tapping a keyboard and posting high ideals on a forum.

Don’t get me wrong - it’s great to strive for perfection and to hold up the ideals of our faith. At the same time we have to consider the various conditions that some people have to live under. We have to consider that in some cultures, a woman would rather choose the risk of death from AIDS than be the social outcast that a woman without a husband is treated as. Is it really okay with us if she chooses death?

Again tell me where natural death is evil. Its going to happen to all of us. How is committing and immoral act killing the life of grace in your soul better than mortal death?

Granted, condoms are not 100% effective against AIDS, maybe their effectiveness isn’t even close to that, but if they could save one out of 10,000 isn’t a human life worth that? Again I refer to the principle of double effect (condoms for preservation of life, not for contraception as the primary intent) which I understand our Church does not apply to this situation, but which is an area that could be looked at again.

Not at the loss of there immortal soul.

As in a previous post, I will suggest that an acceptable course to all would be to advocate for the same high-quality care in those areas of the world that in certain circumstances allow some couples in the West to have normal, procreative sexual relations even when one partner is infected.

To just ask married couples to refrain from sex forever (while continuing to live in the same house!) is a goal that’s simply not achievable and I believe even Scripture recognizes that. We are told that remaining single is not everyone’s calling and that married people should not withold themselves form each other except for certain periods agreed upon by them.

Your argument completely misses the point. Married couples don’t have any right to sex where they have actively made it void of the procreative element. Period. They can not give themselves to each other and hold back on the purpose of the marital act. Its not some grand idea of chastity its its the moral law.

Just as an aside, do we really have to deliver such low blows in putting forward our points of view? Chastity is a great idea to push , but charity is even easier to practice.

Chastity isn’t just some grand ideal. Chastity, along with Charity, is a virtue and without either you will not gain eternal life.

 

[seekerz]

But is it really to charity to allow condom use which will not, I repeat, not prevent the transmission of HIV. This has been documented and brought up in this thread. When charity allows for people to continue to contract fatal viruses, I’ll reconsider my opinion.

My last comment about charity and chastity was with reference to certain posts, not to the HIV issue.

As for it being documented that condoms do not prevent transmission, I believe the operative word is decrease and where has anything been documented?

If carefully made latex products such as condoms and gloves, do nothing to deter the virus at least in a certain percentage of cases, is it moral to expect doctors to risk their lives operating on the general population, some of whom will be positive? (Tests are only useful if the patient doesn’t have sex between them and the surgery).

 

[vern_humphrey]

My last comment about charity and chastity was with reference to certain posts, not to the HIV issue.

As for it being documented that condoms do not prevent transmission, I believe the operative word is decrease and where has anything been documented?

“Decrease,” how?

Condoms may decrease the odds of a single sexual encounter resulting in the transmission of aids, but their use encourages more sexual encounters. And ultimately, no matter how low the odds of failure, failure will occur.

If carefully made latex products such as condoms and gloves, do nothing to deter the virus at least in a certain percentage of cases, is it moral to expect doctors to risk their lives operating on the general population, some of whom will be positive? (Tests are only useful if the patient doesn’t have sex between them and the surgery).

Which is why routine, up-to-date tests are necessary. And no one tells the surgeon, “If you just wear gloves, you won’t run any risk of contracting AIDS!!”

 

[seekerz]

Regardless of what he is told, if he is not at all protected then he’s playing Russian roulette; considering the thousands of doctors in that postion (including Catholic ones) my question is, is it moral, especially if he is liable to unknowingly pass the infection on to his spouse?

Should he just let the patients suffer/die so that he doesn’t bring death to himself and his wife? I repeat, tests (however recent) are only a safeguard to the extent that the patients abstain from sex between the test and their interaction with the doctor.

 

[LJN21]

Regardless of what he is told, if he is not at all protected then he’s playing Russian roulette; considering the thousands of doctors in that postion (including Catholic ones) my question is, is it moral, especially if he is liable to unknowingly pass the infection on to his spouse?

Should he just let the patients suffer/die so that he doesn’t bring death to himself and his wife? I repeat, tests (however recent) are only a safeguard to the extent that the patients abstain from sex between the test and their interaction with the doctor.

Are we talking about doctors and gloves or married people and condoms?

 

[seekerz]

Are we talking about doctors and gloves or married people and condoms?

I’m drawing a parallel between two types of (usually) latex products which are believed by most to offer some protection against HIV transmission, since previous posts have called that belief into question.

 

[ricmat]

Condoms may decrease the odds of a single sexual encounter resulting in the transmission of aids, but their use encourages more sexual encounters. And ultimately, no matter how low the odds of failure, failure will occur.

BINGO!

This is pretty obvious, at least to some of us.