|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 30, 2009 12:23:46 GMT
If one of a Catholic couple is infected wth HIV they should abstain from sexual intercourse altogether; condoms reduce the risk but don't eliminate it. This is a hard saying, I know. Hemingway - if such a couple decides freely and in full knowledge to have intercourse without a condom this is not suicide because the intention is not to kill oneself but to risk one's life for the sake of another good (consoling the spouse). Noelfitz's initial "sex with a condom" statement was actually correct, because it is Catholic doctrine that contraceptive sex is in fact a form of mutual masturbation. The way in which Noelfitz wriggled out of the obvious meaning of his intervention finally convinced me that he is a troll, not really interested in spreading light but in causing confusion and disrupting our discussion. Hemingway; I willingly take on me all you have said about Catholic teaching on that matter. If the teaching is false, then you are correct in condemning me. I hope however we can both unite in condemning Noelfitz who does not give a damn whether it is true or false or what are its consequences so long as he can engage in self-gratification about how smart he is - the intellectual equivalent of sex with a condom. Lastly, Noelfitz, words and ideas have consequences. If I saw you walking towards a broken bridge and I tried to stop you and tell you it was broken, this would be a form of judgement; and your reply is as sensible as it would be to retort that since I am not a moral theologian I should not judge whether the bridge is broken and quote Our Lord's condemnation at me. We all make judgements in that sense thousands of times every day, adn the purpose of this board is to share our judgements and by so doing, as an exercise of Christian charity, help one another to judge better. If you think your judgement is better than mine, as Hemingway does, then say so and we can argue it out; but don't pretend you aren't judging while you are. Instead of the fish of intellectual clarity and the bread of wisdom, you offer only a stone, and Hemingway and Hazelireland, and even the repulsive Sceilg who at least makes no secret from what department of Hell his ravings emanate, will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven before you unless you repent.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 30, 2009 12:32:42 GMT
Oh, by the way, ezigbotutu - Church teaching (as distinct from certain mealy-mouthed middle-class respectable versions of it) never pretended that the sexual instinct doesn't exist or can be abolished. You seem to have mistaken Catholicism for Gnosticism or Albigensianism. What it does say is that the sexual instinct is a good which ought to be restrained and channeled for the good of the spouses, of their children, and of society as a whole, and that this may involve some people giving up the use of that good for the sake of a greater good, of total self-dedication to God and through Him to humanity. The fact that some who have done this have, like the Pharisees, committed worse sins than those whom they condemn does not mean that this is not the truth. Here is a very useful link relating to this question. The author, Peter Hitchens is an Anglican, not a Catholic subjecthttp://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2009/03/condoms-pillsbut-how-about-restraint.html The view which you put forward, on the other hand, though it did respond to serious and avoidable suffering caused by the (mis)application of Christian doctrine, ultimately leads to treating one's partner as a means to self-gratification. To be treated, and to treat oneself, as a pleasure machine, is not really any different from treating one's partner as a baby-making machine a la Henry VIII or a sultan in his harem.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Mar 30, 2009 13:17:37 GMT
Thanks for the link to the Peter Hitchens' article, Hibernicus. I wonder if (Peter) Hitchens' brother Christopher ever responds to these postings of his pro-God sibling.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 31, 2009 10:53:22 GMT
Alaisdir, There have been debates between the Hitchens brothers in the past on religious belief, but in general I think they just ignore one another. Their differences are not merely religious - Christopher can in some respects be described as a neoconservative and is generally Americanophile (he has moved to America and taken out citizenship) whereas Peter is the sort of old-style Little England Tory who resents America for having helped to dismantle the British Empire and taken over from Britain as the leading world power, and who might generally be called a Little Englander. (Peter opposed the Iraq war whereas Christopher supported it.) THE ABOLITION OF BRITAIN is well worth reading even if you disagree with many of his views (as I do; for example, although he will stand up for Catholics on occasion, he has the old-style Anglican belief that Englishness is bound up with Anglicanism and that Catholicism, whatever its other merits, is somehow alien) . There is a tendency nowadays in some quarters to assume that Ireland languished in the Sexually Repressive Dark Ages until the 1970s whereas other nations were basking in the Bright Light of Sexually Liberated Modernity all along. Hitchens' discussion of how until the 1960s the majority of the British population (the elites were more secularised) saw themselves as Christian, subscribed to Christian sexual morality etc, how very rapidly attitudes changed, and how nowadays these changes are seen (at least among the educated classes) as being so self-evidently right that it is regarded as impermissible to raise in public debate not merely the possibility that they might have been wrong but even to call attention to their more harmful effects. I think Hitchens' nostalgia is too all-embracing and that his nationalism is overdone - I don't think these problems can have a solution in one country. He is not as sophisticated an observer as Daniels/Dalrymple (partly because he claims to offer an overall solution which D/D does not) and at times he comes across as an English Tory version of John Waters. But he is a stimulating critic and his blog is well worth looking in on, even though his eulogies to traditional Englishness (whose dark side we had some experince of here in Ireland) are over the top.
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Apr 7, 2009 11:10:17 GMT
If one of a Catholic couple is infected wth HIV they should abstain from sexual intercourse altogether This is a very honest answer Hibernicus, howevr I'm not sure how prictical it is in real terms. A married Catholic couple abstaining from sex altogether when their is an option open to them (all be it condemned by the Catholic Church) would take a big effort for most people. Are we wandering into the relam of wishful thinking here slightly?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 7, 2009 11:26:32 GMT
This is the problem all right - it's a hard saying. We all sin and fall short; I only have to look into my own mind to see that. What exactly do you mean by "wishful thinking"? Are you saying that it is unrealistic to expect that anyone would do it, or that everyone would do it? I see your point if you mean the latter; if the former, remember Jesus said we are all called to take up the Cross and follow Him. That's a hardsaying too
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Apr 7, 2009 13:21:52 GMT
This is the problem all right - it's a hard saying. We all sin and fall short; I only have to look into my own mind to see that. What exactly do you mean by "wishful thinking"? Are you saying that it is unrealistic to expect that anyone would do it, or that everyone would do it? I see your point if you mean the latter; if the former, remember Jesus said we are all called to take up the Cross and follow Him. That's a hardsaying too I’m sure some people could manage to do it. I'd imagine the majority of people wouldn’t. I have no research to back this claim up, only my gut feeling and anecdotal evidence. If I were in that position as a catholic, I think I would use a condom. Can you imagine the feelings of rejection my wife would feel if she were not able to make love with her husband? This on top of having a dreadful virus with an almost 100% outcome of death. Surely it would be my role as a loving husband to show my wife I love, care and support her in this scenario. It really does throw up a conflict for the catholic person, but if using a condom in this unique situation between a loving catholic couple is considered wrong I must question that logic on compassionate grounds. I dearly hope I am never put in that situation and I feel for anyone who has such a conflict between the love of their spouse and their faith.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Apr 7, 2009 14:28:13 GMT
I weary of engaging with the atheist participants as I believe it only wastes my time and theirs, but I have been looking at this particular question.
I know the dilemma described was once very real as a lot of men who suffered from haemophilia, as well as other men and women who required blood transfusions, became infected with HIV. This is a lot less common now due to blood screening and greater selectivity in choosing donors. That doesn't mean there isn't more cases of this.
So, at present it seems the vast majority of AIDS sufferers contract the disease through either sexual promiscuity or drug use. Neither of these are exactly consistent with leading what the Church would see as virtuous. I accept that some people do convert and if they are in a married relationship, this situation may arise. But does anyone have any evidence of this situation other than hearsay?
But I would say there is further depth to this question. If you take the contraceptive pill - this can be prescription medicine for a variety of conditions; indeed it was originally developed to regulate periods in order to help women conceive and the contraceptive effect was only discovered later. Humanae Vitae is clear that if the Pill is prescribed for a reason other than contracepting, due to irregular periods or inaemia or a number of gynachological problems, the contraceptive aspect is a mere side effect and the couple are not required to abstain from sex for the duration of the treatment. I have heard a number of people argue the same about the use of a condom in the situation described: the couple are not using the condom for the purpose of contraception, this is an unforeseen side-effect.
The Church clearly sees abstinence as the good. But the Church is not a totalitarian institution. If the couple are seriously minded to be committed Catholics and find abstinence difficult, they can bring this problem to their confessor(s). He/they won't be able to tell them it is ok to use a condom, but might be able to help them deal with the problem. The nature of the conjugal act is such that it is very difficult to police. One might cynically ask how many married women of child bearing years who assist at Mass as eucharistic ministers or lay readers or such things are absolutely faithful to the Church's norms on family planning. I have my own ideas, but it is simply none of my business and I dare say it is an issue no PP troubles himself about either. But to return to the original point, I doubt the issue of HIV positive faithful Catholic spouses arises so much since action was taken to ensure blood supplies were uncontaminated.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 7, 2009 16:40:00 GMT
I bow to your knowledge alasdair and what you say does sound like a plausible application of double effect. I would simply add that my inclination towards the rigorist position does not simply reflect Church authority but also concern for the spouse since condoms reduce the risk but do not eliminate it altogether.
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Apr 7, 2009 17:32:40 GMT
I would simply add that my inclination towards the rigorist position does not simply reflect Church authority but also concern for the spouse since condoms reduce the risk but do not eliminate it altogether. A fair point Hibernicus, however the fact remains that they reduce the risk by a huge factor. Its actually possible to have intercourse with an infected person and not become infected without protection. But using a condom reduces this risk even further. And just to take up the previous point, I'm sure this scenario is not very common in the developed nations in the modern world but more prevalent in Asian and African countries where there are significant catholic populations and it IS a more common problem.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Apr 8, 2009 10:25:10 GMT
Little ironic this discussion began with the lifting of the SSPX excommunications and went on to condoms. Given that these have been to two touchstone issues regarding Benedict XVI, this is a fair matter for discussion.
On the topic of condoms, Hibernicus is right that they reduce but don't eliminate the risk. Of course I cannot dispute what Harris says about it significantly reducing the risk. But I think we are in the business of distinguishing forests and trees here.
First of all - what sort of AIDS epidemic does the Philipines have? The reason I ask the question is because it is the only predominantly Catholic country in either Africa or Asia. Many other countries have indeed significant Catholic populations in regions, even majorities (I'm thinking of African countries like Rwanda and Burundi) but none to the extent of the Philipines. I believe you will find a much higher rate of AIDS among areas where Animism or Fetishism is practiced than in Christianised or Islamic areas of Africa.
Secondly, to promote condoms alone is usually counter-productive. The most successful programmes are described as ABC - Abstitence, Be faithul, use Condoms - so-called because condoms are only seen as a fall back if the invidual can neither abstain nor confine himself to one partner. This isn't some religious invention either - it was originally pursued in Sweden to tackle alarming rates of what was then known as VD in that country. Perhaps ironically for a topic on this board, this makes me recall State Papers in this country in the 1920s when there was a similar epidemic here (probably the aftermath of War of Independence/Civil War) were administrators saw the role of the Catholic Church in promoting public morality as being key to bringing it under control. Not a lot of people know that condoms were freely available here until the Cosgrave government banned them in the 1920s.
Anyway, excuse the digression, but I think the point is not that I am advancing a working alternative, but simply that condoms are not the only solution. It has been found that proposing condoms as a sole solution doesn't work. I accept this for all to understandable reasons. It is easy to say, and perfectly true, that when a condom is used properly, it almost eliminates the risk of pregnancy and/or sexually transmitted infection. Sometimes condoms break. Much of the high risk casual sexual activity takes place in the context of the aftermath of alcohol consumption or drug use when judgement is impaired. When I was active in students' union politics many years ago as the AIDS was dawning (when I did not regard myself as Catholic or even Christian), I remember pointing this one out). Finally, there is the factor of getting used to sexual activity that when one has an encounter likely to lead to sex, but neither party are carrying condoms or there is no pharmacy open or the vending machine in the pub toilet is not working or something...does one just say 'Another night then?' Remember, condoms have been freely available in Ireland for some time, but STD has not been eliminated, it has increased - as have non-marital births, without referring to the figures of abortion abroad. And don't tell me it is due to ignorance, because sex education resources have never been so progressive. I remember telling teachers it ought to be the pupils teaching the sex ed courses, because they could often access information that teaching staff are quite ignorant of.
Now I am well experienced that many Catholics, particularly parents of traditional or conservative leanings, take fright at any hint of this. My point is, yes discuss anything within reason. But to take it that progressive sexual education and unqualified condom promotion is an unmitigated good without addressing the possible pitfalls is to have one's head in the clouds as deeply as a lot of well meaning but ignorant and overly pious Catholics who take fright at any hint of sexuality.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 9, 2009 16:21:09 GMT
Your point about condoms is quite right Alasdair. I would note in passing that the Cosgrave government's response to the situation you mention also left something to be desired. They suppressed publication of the report in question because they were afraid it would harm the country's reputation and this encouraged the belief that such problems were not found in holy Ireland but only in pagan Britain and other countries; the long-term results of this may be seen now, and are very relevant to your point about the limitations of excessive piety here. It might be worth discussing another aspect of what might be called the "Catholic realist" conception of literature. The rationale for this view was that literature existed not to mirror everyday life in all its faults and strengths, but to provide images of heroism which could serve as role-models, and that to describe sin and weakness except in the most tangential manner was to risk treating them as acceptable. Was this always a mistaken view, or have we now gone too far in the other direction? I also endorse your point that condoms are often spoken of as if they were the ONLY solution - note the way in which it is spoken of as "safe sex" as if it eliminated risk. I believe that Hitchens is actually correct in suggesting that many critics of abstinence programmes do so not merely because they beleive they don't work but because they do not think abstinence desirable even if it is possible. One interesting example of this is a tendency which I notice (for example in academic feminist discussions of Marianism) to treat virginity as an expression of weakness, conformity and submission. It is of course meant to be a sacrifice (and an expression of trust in God when children were expected to be their parents' support in old age) and I wonder what the numerous saints who entered the cloister over parental opposition which sometimes extended to physical violence would say on the subject...
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Apr 9, 2009 22:26:30 GMT
First of all - what sort of AIDS epidemic does the Philipines have? The reason I ask the question is because it is the only predominantly Catholic country in either Africa or Asia. Many other countries have indeed significant Catholic populations in regions, even majorities (I'm thinking of African countries like Rwanda and Burundi) but none to the extent of the Philipines. I believe you will find a much higher rate of AIDS among areas where Animism or Fetishism is practiced than in Christianised or Islamic areas of Africa. There are quite a few catholics in Asian countries. I do not know the Prevalence of AIDS/HIV in these countries but they do have extensive numbers of catholics who could find themselves in the aforementioned position. Philippines - 69,630,000 - 81.03% of population Indonesia - 6,439,000 - 3.15% of population Viêt Nam - 5,658,000 - 6.87% of population Korea (South) - 4,377,000 - 8.86% of population China - 2,964,000 - 0.75% of population Yemen - 1,300,000 - 2.72% of population Pakistan - 1,191,000 - 0.72% of population Belarus - 1,030,000 - 9.99% of population Russian Federation - 789,000 - 0.54% of population Malaysia - 784,000 - 3.17% of population East Timor - 767,000 - 93.20% of population And quite a few other countries with catholic populations less than 750,000. It actually adds up to quite a lot of people outside the Philippines. Source: www.catholic-hierarchy.orgHowever there is no doubt that the AIDS/HIV issue is a huge problem in Africa at the moment and the scenario of the catholic couple using a condom may be very much more likely to be an issue in that part of the world. I do not know if its true that you find "a much higher rate of AIDS among areas where Animism or Fetishism is practiced than in Christianised or Islamic areas of Africa." I cannot find any statistics or evidence online to substiate this claim. You may be correct but I cannot find anything to verify your statement. Do you have any links that you can post here to back it up? Thanks.
|
|