F
fix
Guest
- The ends never justify the means.
- They offer false security.
- To support such things would seem to be cooperating with evil to some extent.
- Status
S
setter
Guest
Why should we as Catholics discriminate against that “subset of the population that will not avoid” high risk sexual behaviors by condoning and promoting denigration of the dignity of their persons through the use of condonmistic intercourse? Does Jesus not make it clear that it is better to suffer the temporal consequences of human weakness than to incur greater risk of losing one’s soul? The eternal perspective is needed to ward off these short-term public health measures that have a way of multiplying health problems and human suffering.
"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Matt. 10:28
"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea. And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell,” Mark 9:42, 43, 45, 47
A
Aquarius
Guest
fix said:
The alternative is to let the epidemic spread. Those who disagree with you have chosen to fight it with condoms.
One of the great disservices the gay movement did was to prevent AIDs from being treated as a public health issue rather than a political issue in the 1980’s. That blunder allowed the disease to spread and make inroads in pouulations that were not infected at the time the public health people wanted to act.
We know how to handle diseases like this, but the public health people were not allowed to do so because of political pressure organized by the gay lobby.
Now we have people on the other side who want to prevent AIDs from being treated as a public health issue. Both sides pushed ideology over science, and the result is more death.
A
Aquarius
Guest
Catholics don’t have to do anything. Just get out of the way. Since most Catholics reject the Church taching on BC, it souldn’t be much of a problem.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Those Catholics suffer the sin of pride and I pray that they properly inform their conscience with the help of a spiritual advisor.
I know you would like Catholics to “get out of the way”, but we should always speak the truth to society. We are supposed to be a beacon on a hill. I don’t think any Catholics are forcing people not to use condoms, we are just telling people the truth - the best way to avoid the spread of AIDS via sexual contact is not to have sex and/or stay monogamous.
Other people are spreading the condom message. If someone is going to ignore the Catholic advice, they are probably going to use a condom. The people who don’t use a condom for fear of sinning but have sex with multiple partners are kind of missing the point.
E
estesbob
Guest
Get out of the way? While million die both spiritually and physically becuase of the “safe sex” the lies told them? i dont think so.
A
Aquarius
Guest
The CDC agrees the best way to avoid AIDs is abstinence or monogamy. However, I think many people posting here want to make the perfect the enemy of the good.
We can also notice that while Catholics are preaching to Africa, they are ignoring the overwhelming majority of US Catholics who reject the Church teachings. There is a curious hesitancy to confront that while there is an eagerness to talk about Africa or gays. I suspect the reason is fear that millions will simply quit the Church.
The choice seems to be between maintaining Church membership and truth.
A
Aquarius
Guest
The CDC says condoms are effective against AIDS. Is the CDC lying?
Is anyone getting in the way of those millions of US Catholics who reject Church BC teaching? Where are they?
S
setter
Guest
Aquarius said:
The Church is mandated and motivated by Jesus himself to bring the Gospel to those walking in darkness and “make disciples of all nations”. Your prescription is from elsewhere.
PS: And yes, as you have correctly pointed out, unfortunately often the missionary ground is within the Church visible – nothing new here.
F
fix
Guest
If it we truly treated the disease as a serious threat to public health the laws would be changed. The politicizing of the virus is the result of gay lobbying propaganda.
Public hygiene includes more than a band-aid to stop immoral behavior and the spreading of deadly infections. Condoms are a poor answer and fail all of us.
A
Aquarius
Guest
Politicizing the virus is the result of gay lobbying.
Now Catholic lobbying is trying to do the same thing.
Public health does include more than condoms, but itdoes include condoms. All public health resources should be used.
B
BlindSheep
Guest
I would not. Vaccines carry their own risks. I am at an extremely low risk of HIV; why should I subject myself to the risks of a vaccine I do not need? Though if such a vaccine were developed, I think there is a good chance we wouldn’t be given a choice whether to have it or not (in fact, it would probably be made mandatory for newborns, as the HepB vaccine was in spite of the relative risk of vaccine reactions to the risk of the disease in that population).
B
BlindSheep
Guest
In a word, yes.
B
BlindSheep
Guest
The issue is more complex than this. You have to take into account the number of people who will choose not to abstain because they feel using a condom is an acceptable option, but who would abstain if they did not believe this. These people harm their soul as well as risking their lives. You then have to weigh this against the number of people who do not abstain, but do not use condoms because of the Church (most likely, very few people if any) - these people have already endangered their soul, and without condoms have an increased risk to their physical health. People who are promiscuous and do not use condoms because it “doesn’t feel as good” are not going to be affected either way by the Church’s teaching, and therefore their infection rates cannot be blamed on the church.
The only other group to consider would be the partner of an unfaithful spouse. If she knows he is unfaithful, the Church does not forbid her to withold sex, or if he would force it on her, does not forbid seperation. Those who would hand a condom to a woman whose husband would cheat on her, rape her and place her life at risk are putting a band-aid on a deep wound, as are those who purport to “help” a women forced by poverty into prostitution by encouraging her or her clients to use condoms. Giving these women an opportunity to do legitimate work and free themselves from these degrading circumstances, and the support in making the transition to self-sufficiency, would truly be compassionate and helpful.
A
Aquarius
Guest
Is skiing wrong? Sky diving? Motorcycle riding? All these involve physical endangerment of one’s life when an alternative of sitting in the Lazy Boy is available.
A
Aquarius
Guest
That’s interesting. But it doesn’t tell us if the CDC is lying when it says condoms are effective against HIV.
A
Aquarius
Guest
Would you have your kids vaccinated? Would you allow them to be vaccinated at age 14 if they wanted to be vaccinated?
B
BlindSheep
Guest
Taking unreasonable risks for the thrill of it is wrong. Our lives do not belong to us, but to God.
B
BlindSheep
Guest
They may make transmission of HIV less likely in a specific instance of risky intercourse, but if they make risky intercourse itself more likely, they may contribute to the spread of HIV. Therefore, in one sense they would be “effective” but ultimately, would be counterproductive.
B
BlindSheep
Guest
Would I have my kids vaccinated against HIV? Not if I were given the choice, though as I said, I don’t think I would be.
The chance of getting HIV may outweigh the risks of the vaccine for a promiscuous person or an intravenous drug user, but the reverse may be true for other people.
Do you think it is fair that people who behave responsibly should be put at risk because of the assumption that all people are irresponsible?
- Status