UK Group threatens campaign against Aids Policy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gunner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gunner

Guest
Essex, Feb. 04, 2005 (CNA) - The U.K.-based Catholic Action Group say that a deadline given to CAFOD, the Catholic Agency for Oversees Development to withdraw its policy of condom use to fight Aids has expired. Catholic Action Group adamantly points out that this policy is contrary to Church teaching, and should be revoked.

The deadline, which hit last Monday, now opens the door for the group’s open campaign of “writing to every parish priest, distributing leaflets and taking out newspaper advertisements.” Reportedly, the group has budgeted to print half a million leaflets for the campaign.

Catholic Action Group, stated in their press releases that they “will openly campaign* against CAFOD up and down the country [on February 1st] unless they back down and stop condoning Condoms.”*

According to Catholic Action Group’s coordinator, CAFOD is showing “signs of concern,” especially in light of a split Bishops conference in England and Wales, from whom CAFOD would like endorsement.

The British paper, The Tablet, stated that while CAFOD has a letter of endorsement from Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, president of the Bishop’s Conference of England and Wales, “a number of the bishops declared that they were not prepared to support the current policy”, and would like the charity to stop endorsing condom use.
 
It is a toughy though don’t you think? I mean, it’s one thing here, but quite another there.
 
40.png
FightingFat:
It is a toughy though don’t you think? I mean, it’s one thing here, but quite another there.
Click to expand...
Would that one had the wisdom of Soloman.

In moral theology there are two types of evil, those perpetrated by man and those of which we have no control. For example murder or killing is man made, the tsunami was a natural evil.

This is illustrated in the classic “Cyral” scenario. The scenario goes as such:

You are escorting a number of children and adults through a system of caves, suddenly there is a loud bang and the roof falls in, the only thing left is a small hole through which you can see daylight. You then notice the water is beginning tro rise fast and is not flowing away. You find that the children can fit through the hole and escape and you start pushing them through one at a time. Then comes Cyral, Cyral is rather plump and suddenly becomes stuck in the hole, no matter what you do you cannot shift Cyral. The water is rising fast and you know that the children and adults left in the cave with you will soon drown. You look in your knapsack and (like all good scouts) you find a pill of semtex.

What do you do?

Does Cyral go for an impromptu ride into the heavens or, do you allow those with you to drown?

In moral theology there is an answer, unfortunantely not everyone would agree with it.

Whats your verdict?
 
Me? Well I agree with the Churches teaching, and itis something I have personally wrestled with as a husband and Father of four (which is bloomin knackering as well as being fabulous). I think that contraception removes the responsibility and dignity that we should associate with the act of…Well, you know.
😉
BUT! And it is a huge but, these people are doing it any way, and the result of that is an aids epedemic, should we concentrate on dealing with that before we educate them to their responsibility with regard to healthy sexual attitude? Culturally these people have a different sexula perspective. I had an African priest lodge with me and he said that before you go forward for the Priesthood, your family expects you to do the deed, so to speak.
 
40.png
Norwich:
What do you do?

Does Cyral go for an impromptu ride into the heavens or, do you allow those with you to drown?

In moral theology there is an answer, unfortunantely not everyone would agree with it.

Whats your verdict?
Click to expand...
I would think that you cannot do evil so that good may come of it. Therefore the children would be go to the presence of God and Cyral would remain earthbound. Bit of a difficult decision to make though.
cafod.org.uk/policy_and_analysis/policy_papers/hivaids/hiv_prevention_condoms_and_catholic_ethics

One of the questions most frequently asked of CAFOD relates to how we deal with the matter of condoms as a prevention strategy for HIV in the context of the sexual transmission of the virus. CAFOD sees HIV prevention as encompassing a broad range of personal and societal strategies for reducing risk and decreasing vulnerability.

CAFOD also recognises that any prevention strategy must take a position on the use of condoms. Since this question is particularly sensitive in the light of Catholic teaching, CAFOD has drawn up a straightforward and summary account of where we stand as a Catholic agency.
  • CAFOD sees the HIV pandemic as one of the greatest development crises facing humankind and fully recognises the multiple social, cultural, economic and other factors that influence behaviour.
  • CAFOD believes that in the long term, behavioural change is the most important and fundamental way to reduce the spread of HIV. Fully consistent with that standpoint and working towards that end, CAFOD aims to help people to modify their sexual behaviour, to reduce the number of their sexual partners and to strive towards living out the ideal expressed in the teaching of the Church of abstinence before marriage and fidelity within it.
  • CAFOD’s experience shows that consistent and sustained behaviour change is part of a complex and long-term process and is rarely achieved quickly.
  • At the same time CAFOD is fully aware of the scale and prevalence of HIV infection in much of Africa, Asia and elsewhere where it constitutes a public health emergency that requires immediate responses and urgent measures.
  • CAFOD therefore recognises that the promotion of harm minimisation is often a necessary and crucial shorter-term strategy.
  • Consequently CAFOD asks all partners working in the area of HIV prevention to give individuals full information about all means of HIV prevention and that this advice is scientifically correct. A person must be able to make decisions about preventing HIV transmission that are consistent with their religious convictions and based on their knowledge and understanding of the risks of their individual situation.
  • CAFOD does not support programmes that give false or misleading information about prevention (for example that HIV will inevitably pass through holes in latex; or that condoms contain HIV; or on the other hand, that the use of condoms guarantees 100 percent ‘safe’ sex). This distorts truth, damages credibility, can alienate rather than engage individuals and others involved in mitigating the spread of HIV. It also inhibits the development of effective partnerships.
  • As the official agency of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales and respectful of Catholic teaching and beliefs, CAFOD does not fund the supply, distribution or promotion of condoms.
  • CAFOD actively supports on-going theological reflection on the implications of prevention for HIV and asks what should our response be as Catholics in ‘This Time of AIDS.’
 
guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1406302,00.html

Cafod, the Catholic international aid and development agency, is threatened with a funding boycott organised by Catholics outraged by its suggestion that condoms may be an acceptable way of combating the spread of Aids in the developing world. An organisation calling itself the Catholic Action Group (CAG) plans to write to every parish in England and Wales, launch a petition and conduct an advertising campaign urging churchgoers to stop funding the charity unless it “repents” the policy.

Its plan could seriously undermine Cafod’s relief efforts**. It is currently working in 64 countries, in Latin America, Africa and eastern Europe, the Gaza Strip and Iraq, and last year raised £28.2m, nearly £20m in individual donations from Catholics.**

The newly formed group is outraged that Cafod has had the temerity to suggest that the use of condoms should not be ruled out as a means of protecting individuals against HIV infection.

Although Cafod does not distribute condoms itself, and insists that it maintains the church’s policy that abstinence is the only way to prevent the spread of the disease, the leaflet circulated by CAG calls for Cafod to be boycotted because it "is deliberately going against the law of God and the teaching of the Magisterium [the teaching office of the church, represented by the Pope and bishops]".

The group’s coordinator, John Gunn, told the Catholic weekly The Tablet this week that he had a budget to print half a million leaflets - enough for about a third of Britain’s mass-attending Catholics - and that he had City backing to raise a six-figure sum to fund the organisation. Cafod was given until last Monday to alter its policy.

On its website Cafod points out that 40 million people, 90% of them in the developing world, have HIV/Aids, and there are 15,000 new cases every day.

It says: “The cornerstone of Cafod’s finances is the funding it receives from the Catholic community.”

It is understood that about 10 parishes have so far withdrawn their funding.

The issue is an extremely sensitive in Catholicism. Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo, president of the pontifical council for the family and an outside candidate for the papacy, caused indignation last year when he suggested that condoms were not a protection, since infection could permeate them.

Other cardinals however, including Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, head of the church in England and Wales, have appeared to challenge Vatican policy.

Earlier this week Cardinal Georges Cottier, the theologian of the papal household, told an Italian news agency that condoms should be tolerated as a “lesser evil” where the church’s ideals of abstinence and fidelity were unrealistic.

Cafod has sought the backing of British bishops for its stance, but although Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor has signed a letter of support, it is understood that a number of bishops are not prepared to support its position.

It said: "Cafod neither funds nor advocates the supply, distribution or promotion of condoms. In this [it] seeks to exercise a role consistent with its Catholic character. Cafod readily recognises that individuals faced with the threat of HIV face moral dilemmas. [It] is committed to providing them with information that is scientifically correct."
 
Matt, your right, moral theology teaches that countering a natural evil with a man made evil is not the way forward.

Unfortunately moral theology does not spell out how to react to such a disaster as Aids. To follow the prescribed formula of not supplying condoms is potentially condemning hundreds of thousands, if not millions to a quite horrible death.

There is some theological mileage in the argument that using condoms as a defense against aids is not different than using some drugs against cancer that leave a person sterile or impotent. That the argument that it leads to promiscuity is not valid because it is judging individual behaviour on a general basis. A similar argument could be made that guns should be banned because a small number of people may use them to kill others. Thats the attitude in Europe but not in America.

It would be wonderful to know the answers, I wish I was that clever. I suppose on balance I must follow the CAFOD route, although I fear the implications if a decision has to be made at least the use of condoms does not take life (it prevents fertilisation by stopping the uniting of egg and seed) although it is a way of limiting the family. In this case its also a way of limiting the birth of children already condemned to a short and painful life with aids.

Maybe if the drug giants in Europe and the States stopped measuring life on a balance sheet and allowed African and Asian countries to produce their own cheep version of aids inhibiting drugs this situation may not arise.

Now there moral theology comes into its own, which is more important, a human life or an investor?

Bet you somebody has an argument to protect the investor!!!
 
40.png
FightingFat:
What do you think about the condom issue Matt?
Click to expand...
In this country an HIV positive person who knowlingly infects their sexual partner can be convicted of attempted murder or grievous bodily harm and that seems fair enough.

I would therefore advocate that an HIV positive person abstain from sexual activity. If such a person ignores my advice, and most of them will, then I would not try to prevent them wearing a condom.

It is like drunkenness. The Church would condemn drunken behaviour but if you are going to get drunk at a Church social it would be better to arrange a taxi for you than to let you drive your car home. Arranging the taxi does not imply approval of the drunkenness but rather a desire to minimise the harm that might flow from it.
 
On a more practical level, the evidence that promoting condoms does more harm than good is clear not only in Uganda, the one African country currently winning the battle against AIDS without condoms, but also in the Phillipines and Thailand. Both countries discovered AIDS at about the same time. Thailand responded with a vigorous campaign of “ 100% condom use” while the Phillipines promoted abstinence for those afflicted with HIV/AIDS and warned against use of condoms. Now this realistic approach has resulted in only 1,935 cases of AIDS in the Phillipines, while there are, sadly, 750,000 cases in Thailand, although their population is the smaller.

This shows, once more, that our loving Mother, the Church, knows what is best for us her children in our physical lives and well as our spiritual lives.

Those of us who love the Church and are appalled by any support of anything that goes against her teaching are doing something about it.
 
cafod.org.uk/policy_and_analysis/commenteditorial/hiv_debate/hiv_debate

Simplistic solutions are inadequate

Sadly, all too often the debate over HIV prevention has involved a contest between “condom only” or “abstinence/fidelity only” solutions. These have often been hijacked by political, religious or cultural agendas in turn fuelled by mutual distrust and prejudices. A third, middle-ground approach known as “ABC” - “abstain, be faithful, use a condom” – has also emerged.

But all three approaches often assume over-simplistic solutions for an idealised world in which all individuals are free to make empowered choices. This is not the reality for most people worldwide affected by HIV.

CAFOD’s approach seeks to take into account the complex social, cultural and economic factors that influence behaviours and condition choices, most particularly (but not only) in countries of the South where the impact of AIDS has been disproportionately catastrophic.

Too often, behaviour change is viewed through a Western, “developed” world, perspective which assumes that autonomous individuals make informed choices based on in-depth understanding of the facts.

One of the erroneous assumptions is that everyone wants to be sexually active from an early age or alternatively, that anyone sexually active outside marriage must be promiscuous.

These ignore the fact that for many in the developing world, sex is often the only commodity people have to exchange for food, school fees, exam results, employment or survival itself in situations of violence.

Uganda: a case in point

Uganda’s success in significantly reducing the incidence of new HIV infections is often cited in support of the A and B approaches. But there were many and diverse factors at play in Uganda’s AIDS campaign which have contributed to its success in reducing infection rates.

President Museveni and his government threw themselves behind the campaigns at an early stage; public figures - including Church leaders – were honest about the reality of AIDS and committed to tackling it.

Uganda changed certain cultural practices and introduced laws to outlaw gender violence and sexual coercion. It also moved from a state of war to one of peace, reaping the benefits in greater economic stability and employment opportunities, as well as increased access for women to education, employment and political life. Within this, one component was an ABC campaign which, while emphasising A and B, did not exclude condoms.

Uganda’s HIV prevention policy in fact shows just how valid is CAFOD’s “three-layer” approach. Uganda mitigated the impact, reduced risks and decreased vulnerabilities.

Challenges and opportunities

The three-layered approach taken by CAFOD calls for diverse groups from every sector of society to contribute to a shared strategy for HIV prevention. It calls for complementarity and collaboration and for the dismantling of mutual prejudices. It deplores the obstructive positioning, judgmentalism and dogmatism of opposing factions that too often feature in over-simplistic polarised approaches. It reconciles solid science and good community development practices with established and evolving moral theology and Catholic social teaching.

The Catholic Church is deeply rooted in local communities throughout the developing world and is a major contributor to the struggle against AIDS in countries worst affected by the pandemic. CAFOD believes that the Church is therefore well placed to promote this more holistic understanding of prevention and to foster reconciliation between opposing factions, drawing these towards an attitude of mutual acceptance and collaboration.

The challenges of the pandemic are urgent and compelling,the challenges of the Gospel no less so. Future generations will hold us to account on both counts.

The understanding of HIV prevention presented here has been developed from CAFOD’s experience of almost 20 years of supporting partners’ community-based HIV programmes in developing countries, and from its ongoing theological reflection on the complex issues raised by HIV.

It is the only understanding of prevention that CAFOD can, with integrity, seek to promote. It does so as, and proud to be, a development agency of the Catholic Church.
 
40.png
Gunner:
Those of us who love the Church and are appalled by any support of anything that goes against her teaching are doing something about it.
Click to expand...
Why Gunner? Could it be you are an…ARSENAL SUPPORTER?

:eek:
 
The argument supporting the use of condoms entirely misses the boat. The Church’s mission is to save souls, not lives. We are talking about two evils, the loss of someone’s life and the loss of someone’s soul. Giving in to accepting the use of condoms to save someone’s life is also giving in to accepting the loss of someone’s soul since the purpose of using the condom is protection in sinful sex (fornication, adultry, and sodomy). Giving in to the acceptance of using condoms reverses the level of importance of saving someone’s soul to saving someone’s physical life. It involves a loss of sight as to what the mission of the Church is. It involves putting material good over spiritual good.

True Christian Charity does not confuse the more important issue with the less important issue. It is much more important to turn people away from sin and save their soul, than to concern oneself with saving their physical life by allowing them to continue to sin “safely.”

Some will say that sinful sex is not the only sex involved, but that married couples, one of whom is HIV positive, need condom protection. I reject that argument. HIV has not become a pandemic because of holy sex. It has become a pandemic because of immoral, sinful sex. Condoms only contribute to this continued promiscuous behavior.

No Catholic bishop has any business supporting the use of condoms nor does any Catholic Charity and no such “charity” will receive any support of any kind from me (not knowingly anyway).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top