The Pope Comments On Condom Use In Africa

[StColette]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1809894' date='Mar 17 2009, 02:58 PM']+J.M.J.+
fixed.[/quote]

ty

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1809890' date='Mar 17 2009, 02:56 PM']Well, you are in one of those gray areas in Moral Theology. I thought that when Dignitas Personae came out that it might have included a section on this topic, but it didn't. The archbishop that confirmed me was moved to San Francisco right before the AIDS epidemic hit. That's about as front line as you can get in moral theology. I had the opportunity to talk to him at a conference once years later, and he talked about having to walk a tightrope between core teachings and intent. He said that some pastors treat the issue like ectopic pregnancies. With those, removing the effected part of the fallopian tube save the mother's life, but the unintended consequence is the termination of the pregnancy. He said that many pastors in his diocese viewed condoms this way when their primary purpose was to prevent the spread of the disease.

I know of one couple where the wife basically went on the the triple cocktail for the duration of the marriage. It's what they do when an HIV+ woman is pregnant to prevent the spread to the baby. I know about a year or so ago a Cardinal in Africa talked about handling condoms in marriage is this exact way. It is possible that the Vatican didn't include the issue in DP simply because this is the way it is handled quietly. To publicly say that this is okay just makes people think that condoms are approved, period. It's like the not eating meat on Friday thing. Everyone remembers the part where we don't have to except during Lent, but seems to have missed the second part about substituting penance instead. So many moral issues involved in marriage are handled quietly on a case by case basis within the pastoral setting.[/quote]


I have issues seeing how a condom could ever be on the same moral grounds as an ectopic pregnancy. An eptopic pregancy is an unintended negative effect caused by an intrinsic moral good. The couple didn't intend the ectopic pregnancy and is now intending to save a life by removing a body part that is doomed to rupture.

In the case of HIV/AIDS, the situation is not so pretty. If a couple is having sex before marriage after one or both parties have contracted HIV/AIDS, then we can't support condom usage because we can't even support the sexual act itself. If a couple is getting married when one or both parties has HIV/AIDS, then they are entering into a situation where they will necessarily have to exclude life in order to exclude disease, and even then, whether condoms prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS free is dubious. I'm not sure that the Church could even support the marriage in the first place, whether or not condoms will be used...we're talking about a key component of married life having a high potential for leading to the death of both spouses. That seems very morally shaky to me. Regardless, the principle of double effect only works if the object of the action is not intrinsically evil and contracepting is, indeed, intrinsically evil.

Moral theology isn't my specialty, but it just seems like an issue where I'd be on the more conservative side of the fence. I will agree with you that it would have been nice to see some more clarification from the Vatican on the matter.

[Old_Joe]

Does anyone know if there is hope for the baby if the mother has HIV/AIDS? I was under the impression that they could prevent the child from contracting it, but I'm not totally sure.

Edited March 17, 2009 by Old_Joe

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Old_Joe' post='1810064' date='Mar 17 2009, 04:41 PM']Does anyone know if there is hope for the baby if the mother has HIV/AIDS? I was under the impression that they could prevent the child from contracting it, but I'm not totally sure.[/quote]

If they put the woman on the right meds soon enough, and the baby continues for a certain number of months afterwards, and the mother doesn't breast feed, I think it is about 98% non-transmission.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1809960' date='Mar 17 2009, 02:57 PM']I have issues seeing how a condom could ever be on the same moral grounds as an ectopic pregnancy. An eptopic pregancy is an unintended negative effect caused by an intrinsic moral good. The couple didn't intend the ectopic pregnancy and is now intending to save a life by removing a body part that is doomed to rupture.

In the case of HIV/AIDS, the situation is not so pretty. If a couple is having sex before marriage after one or both parties have contracted HIV/AIDS, then we can't support condom usage because we can't even support the sexual act itself. If a couple is getting married when one or both parties has HIV/AIDS, then they are entering into a situation where they will necessarily have to exclude life in order to exclude disease, and even then, whether condoms prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS free is dubious. I'm not sure that the Church could even support the marriage in the first place, whether or not condoms will be used...we're talking about a key component of married life having a high potential for leading to the death of both spouses. That seems very morally shaky to me. Regardless, the principle of double effect only works if the object of the action is not intrinsically evil and contracepting is, indeed, intrinsically evil.

Moral theology isn't my specialty, but it just seems like an issue where I'd be on the more conservative side of the fence. I will agree with you that it would have been nice to see some more clarification from the Vatican on the matter.[/quote]

Moral theology is fun. There are so many more twists and turns than dogmatic or biblical. I agree with you that it's a morally shaky issue, and my personal opinion is that celibate marriage would be the way I'd go.
The Pontifical Council on Health Pastoral Care was asked a couple of years ago by the Pope to review condom use by married couples where one is HIV+, and they haven't finished yet.

[Madame Vengier]

I agree with the Holy Father and the Church's stance on this. Condoms will NOT help the situation in Africa regarding AIDS. At best, it would be a minor bandaid remedy. The only way to stop this tragedy in Africa is for the continent to become more and more Christianized. There are already many Christians in Africa and I wonder if they count among the numbers of the afflicted. I'm going to take a stab and say "no". It's a fact, whether people like it or not, that Judeo-Christian values facilitate a more happy, healthy and wholesome lifestyle. This is irrefutable. Secondly, condoms are readily and cheaply available in the western world, yet just this week shocking news was reported that the stats on AIDS in Washington DC (where I live) shows that 30% of the DC population has AIDS. THIRTY PERCENT. It's incredible, just incredible. The fact is, change of lifestyle is the optimum choice, and second to that is the question of whether or not people would be willing to use the condoms in the first place. I don't think the liberals who want to fly over Africa and drop plane-loads of condoms on the ground for the masses really understand this culture. The very same culture that sees no moral problem in having multiple sex partners both in and out of marriage (not to mention the "hidden" homosexuality that exists in Africa but which no one wants to talk about) is also going to steadfastly reject the use of condoms. Good luck trying to get African men to use condoms!! Might as well tell them to paint their nails and wear pink underwear, too. It isn't going to happen. This is a culture which has deepseated notions of masculinity (however flawed those notions may be) and condom use will not fit into their groove. This is exactly the same thing happening in the DC culture. The overwhelming majority of the 30% of AIDS cases here are among black men and women (black men spreading it to their women). They can have all the condoms they want, so why are there so many with AIDS?? Because they feel demoralized by condoms. They simply refuse to use them. And here too, there is a large underground community of so-called straight men engaging in homosexual activity. It even has a name. It's called "being on the Down Low" or "the DL" for short. I'm not going to go into details about that, as this is a topic relating to Africa. But the cultural/societal views of masculinity are the same and the result is the same.

[Jesus_lol]

see, this is where i think the churches black and white views on morality fail. seems like a giant "up yours" to people born with AIDS, to say no you cant ever have sex ever.

sure they can prevent life. in this case they also can prevent death, at about the same efficiency. but if your ideas of how effective they are(i believe it is like 98%, tho some people here are doubting even 90%) are true, then they are more prolife than people practising NFP, if you also believe in how effective that is.

if they arent entirely effective then i dont see what your problem with them is. creating babies that are born with AIDS and then shortly after orphaned by AIDS, then slowly starve to death seems particularily cruel. sure condom use, even if it was very widespread wouldnt stop it completely, but neither does a homeless shelter completely solve homelessness. doesnt mean it isnt worth doing.

like my helmet and riding gear for when i ride a motorcycle. it wont always protect me from everything, but i am a hell of a lot safer for wearing it, and i actually have a pretty dang good chance of surviving a highspeed get-off on the bike, unlike the guy in a T-shirt and shorts. and yes it is an inherently risky activity, but no one is gonna convince me to stop doing it. and i just cant see my mum saying "nick dont you dare wear your helmet, they don't always work, so you are better off without it."

see, this is one of the few occasions where i think the churches black and white views on morality fail. seems like a giant "up yours" to people born with AIDS, to say no you cant ever have sex ever.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1810325' date='Mar 17 2009, 11:28 PM']see, this is where i think the churches black and white views on morality fail. seems like a giant "up yours" to people born with AIDS, to say no you cant ever have sex ever.

sure they can prevent life. in this case they also can prevent death, at about the same efficiency. but if your ideas of how effective they are(i believe it is like 98%, tho some people here are doubting even 90%) are true, then they are more prolife than people practising NFP, if you also believe in how effective that is.

if they arent entirely effective then i dont see what your problem with them is. creating babies that are born with AIDS and then shortly after orphaned by AIDS, then slowly starve to death seems particularily cruel. sure condom use, even if it was very widespread wouldnt stop it completely, but neither does a homeless shelter completely solve homelessness. doesnt mean it isnt worth doing.

like my helmet and riding gear for when i ride a motorcycle. it wont always protect me from everything, but i am a hell of a lot safer for wearing it, and i actually have a pretty dang good chance of surviving a highspeed get-off on the bike, unlike the guy in a T-shirt and shorts. and yes it is an inherently risky activity, but no one is gonna convince me to stop doing it. and i just cant see my mum saying "nick dont you dare wear your helmet, they don't always work, so you are better off without it."

see, this is one of the few occasions where i think the churches black and white views on morality fail. seems like a giant "up yours" to people born with AIDS, to say no you cant ever have sex ever.[/quote]

See, you are missing the bottom line of what our faith is. Our faith is that life here on Earth is short, and the life to come in Christ is eternal. True charity is helping people navigate this life to have the best chance of obtaining the real prize. There are lots of things that people can be born with that will prevent them from ever having sex that has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. Everyone is given crosses, some are just a lot heavier.

[Hassan]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1810366' date='Mar 18 2009, 01:08 AM']See, you are missing the bottom line of what our faith is. Our faith is that life here on Earth is short, and the life to come in Christ is eternal. True charity is helping people navigate this life to have the best chance of obtaining the real prize. There are lots of things that people can be born with that will prevent them from ever having sex that has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. Everyone is given crosses, some are just a lot heavier.[/quote]

There is nothing wrong with beleiving as a matter of faith that the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church established by the second persone of the triune God. The Objective evidence for this proposition, however, is somewhat scant and, at best, not unassailable. If a fully informed adult wishes to live their life believing in the truth of the Church, I have no problem with this. But individuals, particularly children, need to have options. If an individual who is fully informed and has access to other options chooses the live by the Catholic creed I have no problem. But when individuals try to stop people from having access to condomes, which are highly effective in stoping the transmission of the virus, or spread misinformation (they arn't really that effective at stoping the virus) I find this groosly immoral and irresponsible (not attributing this to you, I am just making a general comment).

[Hassan]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1810366' date='Mar 18 2009, 01:08 AM']See, you are missing the bottom line of what our faith is. Our faith is that life here on Earth is short, and the life to come in Christ is eternal. True charity is helping people navigate this life to have the best chance of obtaining the real prize. There are lots of things that people can be born with that will prevent them from ever having sex that has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. Everyone is given crosses, some are just a lot heavier.[/quote]

There is nothing wrong with beleiving as a matter of faith that the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church established by the second persone of the triune God. The Objective evidence for this proposition, however, is somewhat scant and, at best, not unassailable. If a fully informed adult wishes to live their life believing in the truth of the Church, I have no problem with this. But individuals, particularly children, need to have options. If an individual who is fully informed and has access to other options chooses the live by the Catholic creed I have no problem. But when individuals try to stop people from having access to condomes, which are highly effective in stoping the transmission of the virus, or spread misinformation (they arn't really that effective at stoping the virus) I find this groosly immoral and irresponsible (not attributing this to you, I am just making a general comment).

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1810415' date='Mar 18 2009, 02:13 AM']There is nothing wrong with beleiving as a matter of faith that the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church established by the second persone of the triune God. The Objective evidence for this proposition, however, is somewhat scant and, at best, not unassailable. If a fully informed adult wishes to live their life believing in the truth of the Church, I have no problem with this. But individuals, particularly children, need to have options. If an individual who is fully informed and has access to other options chooses the live by the Catholic creed I have no problem. But when individuals try to stop people from having access to condomes, which are highly effective in stoping the transmission of the virus, or spread misinformation (they arn't really that effective at stoping the virus) I find this groosly immoral and irresponsible (not attributing this to you, I am just making a general comment).[/quote]



Immorality? What an interesting, shocking, and rather ironic word for [i]you[/i] to use.

What is immoral is to [u]ignore[/u] the articles and evidence that condoms [u]are not working[/u] to prevent 1) high HIV rates 2) dangerous sexual behaviors. It is immoral to continue to ignore the facts and just push for "condoms" in blatant willing blindness because you personally think that everyone should be allowed to have sexual pleasure over their health physically, mentally, and even more so spiritually. It is damaging the countries in so many ways. [u]You continue to ignore the damaging effects contraception has on people no matter what the reason for their use.[/u] [i]That[/i] is immoral.

[url="http://www.chastity.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=234"]CONDOMS NOT WORKING[/url]

"Some people ridicule the idea that abstinence education is a realistic way to deal with the AIDS crisis in developing nations. However, the evidence in favor of such an approach is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. [u]In his testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Green said, 'Many of us in the AIDS and public health communities didn’t believe that abstinence or delay, and faithfulness, were realistic goals. It now seems we were wrong.'[/u] In a Washington Post article entitled 'Let Africans Decide How to Fight AIDS,' he added,[b][u] 'Billions of dollars and the lives of countless men, women, and children will be wasted if ideology trumps proven health policy.[/u][/b]'"

Edited March 18, 2009 by TotusTuusMaria

[Jesus_lol]

good post. actually two good ones

i agree, it is all about choices. when someone tries to persuade me to their way of thinking, even if i am not interested, i can't fault them for it. when they try to either blind me to the other options or take the choice away entirely then i have a problem.

the difference here is that i believe the worst a condom can do in these situations is fail, thus putting you back at square one, not any worse off than if they werent used.

i suppose if we saw eye to eye on this, then i would be a catholic, and agreeing with you.

Edited March 18, 2009 by Jesus_lol

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1810423' date='Mar 18 2009, 01:40 AM']good post. actually two good ones

i agree, it is all about choices. when someone tries to persuade me to their way of thinking, even if i am not interested, i can't fault them for it. when they try to either blind me to the other options or take the choice away entirely then i have a problem.[/quote]

The God I believe in is all about free will. Good parents are like that. Even when they know we are going to make the wrong choices, they still let us fall on our faces. God knows I have ended up face down in the mud enough times in my life to recognize the flavor.

[Jesus_lol]

slogging through the mud makes the sunny days all that much better.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1810423' date='Mar 18 2009, 06:40 AM']the difference here is that i believe the worst a condom can do in these situations is fail, thus putting you back at square one, not any worse off than if they werent used.[/quote]
No, the worst that can happen is that the condom fails, and an additional person (or two, if a child is conceived and the woman isn't on the correct meds) contract AIDS. And that is what I find unacceptable. Sure, it's less of a risk than not using a condom if you have AIDS, but it still seems an unacceptable risk, one that you wouldn't subject another to if you truly loved them, IMHO.