Sex, condoms and HIV

[JHow]

As someone who worked for a long time in heavy industry, you give them steel-toed shoes (my employer at the time paid for a new pair every year).

Because:

1. accidents will happen;
2. some people will always be careless, cut corners, etc.

It’s human nature, we’ll never be perfect. The idea is to reduce foot injuries as much as possible. Or to to reduce the spread of HIV as much as possible.

BTW, I agree condoms are not the best choice for the job and are morally objectionable. However, again, I reiterate, we are talking about a largely non-Catholic population who do not consider themselves bound by Catholic morality.

So unless you evangelize first, you’re putting the cart before the horse.

You can also reduce work-place injuries through training (modify behavior), and by replacing dangerous jobs with new technology, although this latter idea doesn’t really apply to AIDs. The Church uses the first strategy. Following chuch teaching you will avoid many of the known major HIV risk factors: no sex outside marriage, marriage to one spouse, no anal sex, no illicit drug use, no homosexuality. Any benefit provided by condoms is far outwieghed by avoiding the above. The only thing you really can’t control for is bad medical practice, such as the sharing/re-uisng needles, which I have seen happen in second-world countries, so I can only imagine how it is in third world countries.

Also, the “they’re going to do it anyway”, or “they’re not Catholic” attitude is borderline racism in my book. People absolutely can change and modify behavior if it is explained to them and they understand why and the benefit to them for doing so. Morality is not just some arbitrary set of rules that we got from God for no particular reason - it produces real benefits for societies that follow these rules. People don’t have to be catholic to accept morality.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

As someone who worked for a long time in heavy industry, you give them steel-toed shoes (my employer at the time paid for a new pair every year).

Because:

1. accidents will happen;
2. some people will always be careless, cut corners, etc.

It’s human nature, we’ll never be perfect. The idea is to reduce foot injuries as much as possible. Or to to reduce the spread of HIV as much as possible.

BTW, I agree condoms are not the best choice for the job and are morally objectionable. However, again, I reiterate, we are talking about a largely non-Catholic population who do not consider themselves bound by Catholic morality.

So unless you evangelize first, you’re putting the cart before the horse.

But part of the evangelization is for Catholic groups not to hand out condoms or support this practice.

Otherwise is underminds that evangelization making us hypocrits.

We say one thing but do another. Very wrong.

 

[joandarc2008]

Here is the moral argument folks - and it is morality 101 - in order for an action to morally good it must be:

1. The object of the act must be good
2. The intention of the act must be good
   3)The circumstances of the act must be good

If anyone of the three of these is inherently evil then the act is inherently evil.

So here you have

the object= teaching condom use = inherently evil
the intention= stop spread of HIV = inherently good
the circumstances= African countries where people have multiple sexual partners= inherently evil

two evils + one good = one inherently evil act

How is this a question?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Here is the moral argument folks - and it is morality 101 - in order for an action to morally good it must be:

1. The object of the act must be good
2. The intention of the act must be good
   3)The circumstances of the act must be good

If anyone of the three of these is inherently evil then the act is inherently evil.

So here you have

the object= teaching condom use = inherently evil
the intention= stop spread of HIV = inherently good
the circumstances= African countries where people have multiple sexual partners= inherently evil

two evils + one good = one inherently evil act

How is this a question?

Great post but I would change this.

the intention=stop spread of HIV=inherently neutral at best, inherently evil more likely

I said this for two reasons.

Teaching that condoms stops the spread of aids is two things.

1. it gives piece of mind to those who might not have sex that having sex with a condom is safe
2. condoms are not 100% effect at stopping the spread of aids

 

[joandarc2008]

Great post but I would change this.

the intention=stop spread of HIV=inherently neutral at best, inherently evil more likely

I said this for two reasons.

Teaching that condoms stops the spread of aids is two things.

1. it gives piece of mind to those who might not have sex that having sex with a condom is safe
2. condoms are not 100% effect at stopping the spread of aids

Right Brother - the intention though IMO, is to save lives, however it has to be inherently good or abstinence education does not work as good work:

object: abstinence education - inherently good
intent: stop spread of HIV- inherently good
circumstances: multiple sexually partners in Africa which this will seek to lessen - inherently good

since all three parts have to be inherently good in order for the act to be good

Maybe I am misreading or misunderstanding - I am in no way trying to say that we should be teaching condom use anywhere it gives a false sense of security and actually will do theopposite.

 

[edwest2]

Here is the story of a Harvard researcher who has spent 25 years promoting condom use in Africa. He agrees with the Pope.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/harvard_researcher_agrees_with_pope_on_condoms_in_africa/

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Reginator]

Here is the story of a Harvard researcher who has spent 25 years promoting condom use in Africa. He agrees with the Pope.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/harvard_researcher_agrees_with_pope_on_condoms_in_africa/

God bless,
Ed

Thanks for the link Ed!

From the article:

Dr. Green found that part of the elusive reason is a phenomenon known as risk compensation or behavioral disinhibition.

“[Risk compensation] is the idea that if somebody is using a certain technology to reduce risk, a phenomenon actually occurs where people are willing to take on greater risk.” The idea can be related to someone that puts on sun block and is willing to stay out in the sun longer because they have added protection. In this case, however, the greater risk is sexual. Because people are willing take on more risk, they may “disproportionally erase” the benefits of condom use, Green said.

 

[casey_zia]

Thanks for the link to this article, Ed! We all love it when a non-Catholic can see the wisdom and truth of Catholic teaching.

I spent several years overseas working in a clinic in east Africa. The generous first-world countries filled the government clinics with condoms and contraceptives (and not much else), but the people came to our mission clinic for antibiotics, TB treatment and followup, lab tests, STD treatments, vitamins, maternal care. The people were open to teachings about health and disease prevention, and our instructions about preventing STDs (abstinence, monogamy) was heard. It is quite racist to deem people of other cultures incapable of “hearing the message” or changing their lifestyle; it wasn’t too much of a stretch for them to see that certain sexual behaviors had severe repercussions. It’s much harder in our North American culture!

 

[06convert]

I just don’t understand. If you can teach someone what to do with a little package with a condom in it and what alleged value using it has to them and to their society. You can certainly teach them the value of not having sex with anyone and everyone they feel like. I think we are really selling people short. We need to give people a chance to understand things not just throw condoms at them. Everyone deserves to be told the truth and given an opportunity to believe and trust it.