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

[nerfherder]

Are HIV-positive people being forced to have sex? Is someone holding a gun to their heads?

Condoms have a failure rate – and as any statistician worth his calculator will tell you, for any event with P greater than zero, over enough trials P will approach 1. In other words, if it can happen, and you keep trying it will happen.

To tell people that condoms make “safe sex” is false and tantamount to killing them.

Your statement on condom efficiency is patently wrong: go Google, or see earlier postings.

I earlier quoted evidence that states that condom use is perfectly safe, both men’s and women’s condoms. No contraceptive device is 100 per cent perfect, but the condom in most cases prevents bodily fluids from entering, say, the vagina - especially where it has been injured by STI, or by traditional customs, sometimes demanded by men, such as requiring women to place dry grass or stones in the vagina for so-called ‘dry sex’, believed to be more satisfying. You can refer to that evidence if you go back to the earlier postings on the efficacy of condoms, or you can go Google.

Catholic research differs greatly, in this regard, from evidence from the United Nations, for example, as the earlier postings show.

No, people who are HIV+ are not being forced to have sex. Or did you mean are people who are not HIV+ being forced to have sex, in which case the answer is yes. Younger and younger women, and even babies are being forced into sexual intercourse, anal or vaginal, with men who hope to avoid HIV infection, or to cure the infection, sometimes on the advice of sangomas, or traditional healers. The psychological trauma is inconceivable, not to mention the physical trauma which is devastating.

Teachers are among those who prey easily on young girls, blackmailing them - for better marks, for more attention, for lifts to and from school, to avoid punishment - into sexual activities which place girls at risk.

A woman who is trying to keep her marriage together in order to keep her children fed and in school has no option but to keep her relationship with her (possibly) HIV infected husband alive. Even if he is committing incest with her children, it is not in her interest to leave him.

Do at-risk individuals have guns pointed at their heads? No. But they might as well have.

 

[nerfherder]

So, humans are prisoners of their passions and must act on every sexual impulse or else what?

He has not said that, but has made a composed and effective statement about virtue and human nature. All of us try; none of us is perfect. And that goes as much for intercourse as it does for passing along the flu, or the new kind of terminal TB which seems to be 100 per cent fatal because drug resistant. The only way I can be sure of preventing infection is by stopping breathing: it is passed in the air and the microbe remains in the air for 20 minutes after the source has left the vicinity. No more air travel? No more friends? No more pubs? No more church? Perhaps. Cuba after all too the simple step - contrary to all human rights we know - of confining those with HIV, in the early days of the pandemic.

 

[nerfherder]

So you would go around telling people it’s okay to not wash your hands during flu season?

Which is why people with HIV should abstain – and should not be told that using a condom is “safe sex.”

What about the built-in anger drive? Does that make it okay for me to kill someone?

A real fix for HIV transmission, shouldn’t involve lying to people and telling them condoms are “safe sex.”

You have deliberately misinterpreted, skewed, or tried to refute without evidence every careful statement above. Not useful or smart perhaps.

Read my lips: condoms contribute substantially to the safety of two people having sex. Here, I shall repeat the United Nations evidence quoted earlier:

How effective are condoms in preventing HIV transmission?
An overwhelming body of evidence demonstrates that condoms are highly effective in preventing transmission of HIV. Correct and consistent condom use should give you a high degree of confidence in your ability to prevent HIV transmission.

The effectiveness of condoms
At least four different types of evidence demonstrate the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission. Laboratory studies have shown that the virus cannot pass through latex or polyurethane. There is also a theoretical basis for effectiveness: condoms prevent exposure to semen or vaginal fluids that may carry the virus. Epidemiological studies, which compare infection rates among condom users and non-users, have found that condoms offer significant protection against HIV infection. Finally, in many countries that have significantly reduced HIV infection rates (such as Brazil, Thailand and the USA), reduced rates of transmission have been strongly associated with increased condom use.
Few prevention methods are 100% effective. Condoms do occasionally slip or break, although fortunately this rarely happens. Condoms that are outdated, poorly manufactured, or inappropriately stored are especially susceptible to breakage. Oil-based products (such as hand lotion or petroleum jelly) can also damage male latex condoms, so only water-based lubricants should be used during sexual intercourse with a male condom.

In general, condoms are most likely to fail when they are not used as directed. Opening a condom packet with your teeth, a knife or scissors, for example, can inadvertently cause the condom to tear. It is important to use condoms from the beginning of a sexual act, rather than just before ejaculation, to prevent exposure to potentially infectious pre-ejaculate or vaginal fluids. Studies suggest that the frequency of condom failure declines as individuals become more accustomed to using condoms. That is one reason why effective HIV prevention includes both accurate information on condoms and measures to increase individual skill in using condoms correctly. As employees of the UN system, we are entitled to a facilitated demonstration of the use of both male and female condoms.

In reality, condoms are extremely effective in preventing HIV transmission when they are used. Because sexual intercourse is often unplanned, it is a good idea to always carry a condom in case you need one. If you have a steady partner, you should also discuss how you as a couple intend to reduce the risk of HIV transmission.

Ideally, a couple’s decision to use a condom results from a process of negotiation. The couple discusses the benefits of using a condom, addresses any concerns or resistance, and agrees on a mutually satisfactory approach. Sometimes, though, one member of the couple may lack the power to negotiate condom use. Many women, for example, report having difficulty asking their husband or partner to use a condom.

unworkplace.unaids.org/UNAIDS…-condoms.shtml

 

[nerfherder]

So you would go around telling people it’s okay to not wash your hands during flu season?

Which is why people with HIV should abstain – and should not be told that using a condom is “safe sex.”

What about the built-in anger drive? Does that make it okay for me to kill someone?

A real fix for HIV transmission, shouldn’t involve lying to people and telling them condoms are “safe sex.”

I forgot to add that it has recently been reported, with certainty, that male circumcision has a great capacity to reduce HIV transmission. Do you have a problem with that?

 

[LJN21]

I forgot to add that it has recently been reported, with certainty, that male circumcision has a great capacity to reduce HIV transmission. Do you have a problem with that?

You completely miss the point.

Sex with condoms is AWAYS intrinsically evil because condoms are a contraceptive.

The UN has absolutely NO moral authority to speak about anything.

Circumcision is MORAL.

 

[nerfherder]

Washing your hands and eating (well in moderation) are not Immoral. You parallels do not hold water.

That is completely irrelvent. Sex with a condom is intrinsically evil and a sin. Sin > Disease Having HIV in a state of graces is better than being in a state of mortal sin.

Sex is not a biological need. Making it one makes us no better than animals. It is also human nature to lie cheat and steal that doesn’t make them acceptable behavior.

Why do you think that sex is in a different category from lying and cheating? Or are they in the same category? Or are there things that are morally wrong in different ways? Or is it just because it is sex that we have such difficulty in talking about it sensibly.

For me, lying and cheating are morally wrong. There is nothing, nothing at all, morally wrong with sexuality. It is a gift of God, a very special gift. Some believe that it was given to us for the purpose of procreation only; others disagree with that.

Those who argue procreation morality are likely to have been influenced by the myth of the Garden of Eden, which we now know to be part of a creation myth which falls away in the face of evolutionary evidence. I often wonder how people in this belief deal with the fact that once each month a human egg, which might have been an embryo, which might have been a foetus and a child and a person, is expelled from the female body.

I was taken aback by a series of postings a few weeks ago by a woman asking if it was OK for her husband to pinch her nipples in the garden in the afternoon, when they were feeling affectionate, if they were going to have intercourse that night. But what if something put off the possibility of having intercourse? Then would the nipple pinching be a sin? Or perhaps it would be a sin anyway, because of the amount of time that would lapse between the nipple-pinching and the intercourse.

Many others of us learned out morality from our Victorian forebears: I believe that my two great-uncles never had children with their wives because they didn’t know how to. I was a virgin when I married at 23: if I had not been a virgin, I would not have married the wrong person. Divorce or annulment?

Thinks.

 

[nerfherder]

People don’t act upon “every passion”.
See it this way: People shouldn’t steal, but would you leave your door unlocked tomorrow when you leave home?
-or-
Should an alcoholic (one with a powerful drive to drink liquor) have bottles in his home? Is it prudent? With regards to sex drive, we all have our non-detachable thingies, so we cannot throw the bottle away. Sex would be an even worse scenario than the alcoholic’s case.

Furthermore, I’m seeing it from a medical (epidemiological) and bioethical point of view. Put yourself in the driver’s seat: If you were the secretary or minister of public health, would you confront the epidemic “expecting” people to behave like saints? Would that be ethical? How to be compassionate in a real world where humans are, on the whole, prone to sexual activity and inapt for indefinite abstention?

Thank you for your insight here!

 

[nerfherder]

Now we are getting some where. Just cause your want it doesnt mean you should/can have sex
Nope and someone addicted so sex should not be left in the position to act
Your seeing it from and worldly Non-Catholic point of view, which is neither the purpose or the end of this conversion.

People have moved too far, inevitably perhaps, in the direction of the condom debate, and I hope we can develop a more coherent discussion of the three aspects but up: HIV, God’s poor, and the Church.

These statements do not come from a ‘worldly, non-Catholic point of view’. They come from experience, insight and knowledge, quite evidently.

You suggest: ‘someone addicted to sex should not be left in the position to act’. Given the post about thingies, what would you propose to do to prevent the person addicted to sex from acting? We can start with you perhaps? Am I kidding?

 

[nerfherder]

Doing what is right is not simply an ideal, but a necessity.

The issue is, do people do what they ‘should’ do, in terms of some natural, religious, or state law?

Or are we all tainted by original sin, stubborness, or ignorance that leads us to behave in ways other than as we ‘should’?

As for public health protocol in no way would I recommend condoms as they simply further bad behavior. Not only is “protection” a fantasy, but relying on them gives little more than mental comfort until the failure happens and it will.

The idea that condoms protect is not a fantasy, as you will know if you have read the posts from the United Nations put up twice on this thread.

Condoms give far more than mental comfort, although it is true, they do lift the great psychological and emotional burden of those at-risk of being infected by HIV against their will.

There is no evidence that, combined with sex/life orientation programmes etc., condoms influence young people to become more sexually active. If there is, perhaps you can present it.

 

[LJN21]

Why do you think that sex is in a different category from lying and cheating? Or are they in the same category? Or are there things that are morally wrong in different ways? Or is it just because it is sex that we have such difficulty in talking about it sensibly.

For me, lying and cheating are morally wrong. There is nothing, nothing at all, morally wrong with sexuality. It is a gift of God, a very special gift. Some believe that it was given to us for the purpose of procreation only; others disagree with that.

Yes sex is in a different category as lying and cheating, both of those things while bad I am not aware that they violate natural law. That’s not to say they are not sinful they just aren’t as sinful as other things.

Pre-marital, extra-marital and contraspicive marital sex are all interinicly evil (therefore a grave sin) because the nature of the act is dissorded.

Those who argue procreation morality are likely to have been influenced by the myth of the Garden of Eden, which we now know to be part of a creation myth which falls away in the face of evolutionary evidence.

Well now I think we might have spoted part of the problem here.

So you think the bible is a myth?

I often wonder how people in this belief deal with the fact that once each month a human egg, which might have been an embryo, which might have been a foetus and a child and a person, is expelled from the female body.

Whats that got to do with anything. Yes, all those mights might have happened so what?

I was taken aback by a series of postings a few weeks ago by a woman asking if it was OK for her husband to pinch her nipples in the garden in the afternoon, when they were feeling affectionate, if they were going to have intercourse that night. But what if something put off the possibility of having intercourse? Then would the nipple pinching be a sin? Or perhaps it would be a sin anyway, because of the amount of time that would lapse between the nipple-pinching and the intercourse.

Thats overly legialistic even for me.

Many others of us learned out morality from our Victorian forebears: I believe that my two great-uncles never had children with their wives because they didn’t know how to. I was a virgin when I married at 23: if I had not been a virgin, I would not have married the wrong person. Divorce or annulment?

Thinks.

Agian not seeing what this has to do with anything. Virginty while a good thing is not a requirment for a good marriage. We all make mistakes but that doesn’t mean the Church should condone them.

 

[Contarini]

I’m really having a hard time finding and even believe where that Aquinas approved of it. Would you mind showing me?.

In post #216 I cited where Aquinas refers approvingly to the policy of the civil governments of his time. You can consult works of medieval history to learn what that policy was. It’s a matter of common knowledge. Medieval societies saw no contradiction between saying something was sinful and accepting it as part of society. This arose IMHO from their Augustinian view of the “two cities”–they didn’t think it was the job of the Church to transform society into a perfect embodiment of the Kingdom of God. They were not utopians–at least the dominant tradition was not.

Edwin

 

[nerfherder]

From Fr K, SJ, Lusaka Zambia

**Some may fear that the application of this teaching would lead to promiscuity, that it would serve as an encouragement to young people to engage freely in sex since it provides them with a way of protecting themselves against HIV infection. It does not have to be so.

The guiding principle for a young person (indeed for every person) is to develop a mature sexuality that can realise its ultimate expression in a loving, sensitive and permanent relationship of union with another. Abstinence, deliberately chosen, freely striven for, supports this development. That is why it should inspire the life and behaviour of an unmarried person. In doing so, it also provides infallible protection against HIV infection. Hence, for an unmarried person, abstinence arising from a healthy sexuality is the first line of defence against HIV/AIDS.**

 

[estesbob]

From Fr K, SJ, Lusaka Zambia

I can find you quotes from Prests that say abortion is Ok and homosexual Behavior is OK. Individaul Priests DO NOT speak for the Chuch. His opinion are just that-opinions.

 

[nerfherder]

Whats that have to do with this?

Culture does not supercede morals. Whats immoral for us isn’t okay for them.

No, but it creates very problematic situations, especially when we are responsible for one another. Whatever happens in elsewhere in the world, is inevitably going to rebound on you - chaos theory, or ubuntu (we are all responsible for one another, and in that lies our humanity), or simple Christianity - compassion and healing.

Are we stuck on morality because we do not know how to move with Christ into compassion and healing, caritas and responsibility? Words from the high moral ground do not make one whit of difference to an Indian, a Chinese or a Ugandan dying of AIDS, or an opportunistic infection associated with it.

 

[Contarini]

Some believe that it was given to us for the purpose of procreation only; others disagree with that.

I don’t think anyone on this thread has argued that procreation is the only legitimate purpose of sexuality.

Those who argue procreation morality are likely to have been influenced by the myth of the Garden of Eden,

Well, we had better be influenced by it. It’s in Scripture, and it’s a pretty important part of Christian tradition!

which we now know to be part of a creation myth

Of course it’s a myth. It’s the true myth revealed by God.

which falls away in the face of evolutionary evidence.

When people make statements like this I find it hard to see why they are Christians at all. Call me a fundamentalist if you like. . . I do not take the early chapters of Genesis literally, but the narrative of the Bible is the narrative within which I understand my life. I do not know how else to be a Christian.

I often wonder how people in this belief deal with the fact that once each month a human egg, which might have been an embryo, which might have been a foetus and a child and a person, is expelled from the female body.

How is this relevant?

if I had not been a virgin, I would not have married the wrong person.

Perhaps–obviously I have no way of assessing the accuracy of your opinion here and it is none of my business to ask how you know. But certainly people who are not virgins make foolish marriage choices all the time.

I can say from my own experience, without getting too explicit, that it’s certainly true that it can take a long while for two virgins to figure sex out, especially if they have a lot of quasi-Victorian inhibitions (not necessarily the same thing as traditional Christian morality). But I would rather have that than have the distorted overemphasis on sex that I see in much of contemporary culture. I would be faithful to my wife (though it would no doubt be difficult at times) even if we never had sex again. I think that would be harder for someone with a “liberated” sexuality to say, because I believe that what our society considers a “liberated” sexuality is actually a form of addiction. A person for whom a “good sex life” was essential to happiness would presumably find it much harder to be faithful to a marriage where the sex was “bad.”

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Are we stuck on morality because we do not know how to move with Christ into compassion and healing, caritas and responsibility? Words from the high moral ground do not make one whit of difference to an Indian, a Chinese or a Ugandan dying of AIDS, or an opportunistic infection associated with it.

Carol, with all due respect I think you’re making a false dichotomy here. If our morality is not based on charity, it is false morality. And similarly, if our compassion is immoral, then it is not in fact genuine charity. Charity means leading people toward the end for which they were created.

The question here really is the relationship between the norms Christians (particularly Catholics) have inherited from their tradition and our internal sense of what is just and compassionate, which is itself influenced both by our religious heritage and by the mores of our society.

Edwin

 

[vern_humphrey]

I have said that it should perhaps be tolerated and conditionally encouraged (i.e., if people are going to have sex even though abstinence would be better. . . ). I have not supported it in an absolute sense, no.

It isn’t that difficult a question. “Conditionally encouraged” means encouraged, no matter how you slice it. And it’s nice turn of phrase, because what you are encouraging is not condoms (they are inanimate objects and can’t be encourage) but the behavior in which they are used.

Right. And that is where you have persistently misrepresented me. I am absolutely opposed to any policy of promoting condoms in lieu of abstinence, and I have said so explicitly in several posts directed to you.

People who are using condoms are not practicing abstinence.

If you encourage the use of condoms – even “conditionally encouraging” their use, then you are encouraging the behavior. And that is contrary to encouraging abstinence.

You seem unwilling even to recognize the distinction I’m making between condoms as good in themselves and condoms as (possibly) better than sexual intercourse without condoms in certain circumstances.

Can you demonstrate the “possibly better” aspect? How is using a condom “possibly better” than abstinence?

You can disagree with the distinction, but so far you refuse even to admit that I’m making it. It’s like Protestants not only rejecting the dulia/latria distinction but refusing to admit that it exists even in the minds of Catholics.

No, it’s not – as I have pointed out “conditionally encouraging” the use of condoms, is encouraging behavior. And that behavior runs directly against abstinence, and – even with condoms – puts the parties in mortal danger.

You are confusing the idea-as-it-exists-in-my-mind with the-idea-as-you-believe-it-to-be-in-reality. In a debate it is the job of each of us to bring the first of those (the other person’s view of the case) into alignment with the latter (what we believe to be the case). But we can only do that if we first recognize what the other person (however mistakenly) believes to be true in the first place. Otherwise you’re just arguing with a fantasy of your own invention.

Edwin

No – in fact, I often use your own words. When you encourage, you encourage, no matter how you nuance it. When the behavior encouraged puts lives at risk, then that encouragement is wrong.

 

[nerfherder]

That something was done does not make it right.

Intrinsic evil may never be done. If I follow your reasoning then we ought to not educate about dwi because it is so common we ought to just make foam cars.

OK, OK, OK. Where is this high moral ground argument going? It is not going to prevent infection; it is not going to prevent the death of hundreds of millions of people across the globe, including many in the United States, as the virus/prion mutates. Some countries will certainly be able to meet the challenge of the pandemic better than others, especially those that have been blessed with a higher standard of living than others.

The wretched of the earth are those who live on less than one dollar per day. What choices are open to those individuals, if any, about anything? Their focus is simply on getting enough food to stay alive, no?

The wretched of the earth live in countries which have perhaps less than 20 per cent **employment **(Zambia is estimated to have 10 per cent employment, at least in the formal sector).

The wretched of the earth live in communities without clean water, electricity, sanitation of any kind, poor education and health facilities, and where there may be as many as 90 per cent infection rate. I wrote earlier about one community in Zimbabwe where every household is headed by a child because all adults are dead of HIV.

The wretched of the earth live in regions which have already been hit by global warming. In the southern Africa region, for example, while Zambia suffered from floods, which impacted on Mozambique as the water flowed to the sea to the east, Zimbabwe (once the breadbasket of the region) suffered from a terrible drought. It was estimated in today’s papers that the country has about 50 per cent of the food it needs to feed its population, of whom 3.5 million have fled to South Africa to find food and a life. Others have gone to neighbouring countries; professionals have left for appointments all over the world.

The wretched of the earth are denied choice. What about their free will. What about their moral high ground: it would be very different from ours I suspect. What is the responsibility of each Christian, and of the Church here?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I have asked another poster to give us details on Botswana: my fieldwork was done there about four years ago, from urban Gaborone (the capital) to very rural Herero areas in the Okavango Delta. At that time the prevalence rate in this country of about 1.8 milliion people was almost 40 per cent. Cattle posts had either been abandoned, or were used to keep those dying of AIDS in secret. Teachers were reluctant to marry (66 per cent were unmarried) because only in that way could female teachers avoid HIV prevalent husbands. Many teachers wished to move into urban areas to be near hospitals: in rural areas inhabitants might be further away from a clinic than 40 km.

But Botswana is different from any other country in Africa. Its per capita income is the highest in Africa (higher than South Africa) and it has come out of the ‘less developed countries’ category of the development agencies of the United Nations. It has therefore been able to mount a national ARV (anti-retroviral drugs) programme to cover, as much as possible, every infected person in Botswana, and to prevent children becoming infected at birth (approximately 600,000 people for life, with new infections coming along daily). The problem for Botswana, which has been assisted by American and UK strategists has been to develop a strategic plan which allows Ministry of Health, in conjunction with World Health Organisation and United Nations Development Programme to distribute drugs thoroughly.

Please Google if you would like the most recent prevalence and infection rates for Botswana, and the regional differences within the country.

And no, Botswana did not reject condoms: they were distributed in a variety of ways, some for free, some for a small price. They are being used as one tool among many for those who wish to use them. Consortia of churches of different denominations in some areas (like Maun in the north) were able to supplement provisions by the Ministry of Health, including condoms, with a free counselling and testing service.

In other words, Botswana had the best chance of defeating AIDS. It is a small, fairly affluent country with a relatively homogenious and law-abiding population. It applied the “school solution” and the result is 40% infection rate – disaster!!

How many more such disasters will it take before we re-think our politically-correct approach?

 

[nerfherder]

You [can] have society establishing a way in which sinful activity can be carried on in a less destructive manner than would otherwise be the case. And in the former case the policy was endorsed by both Augustine and Aquinas.

I have never said that sex outside of marriage is OK. I have said that I’m open to the argument that it might be OK for married people to use condoms if their intention was to save life rather than to prevent conception. But I think this issue is getting in the way of the broader question, and I do not profess to know whether this argument will actually hold water. So we should probably put it aside for now and focus on the question of whether making condoms available to people who are already doing sinful acts is morally legitimate.)
Edwin

Comments would be appreciated.