Replies

I offer abstaining from sex.

That's unresponsive. The bishops in Africa are struggling with this, like no other clergymen on earth.

Admonishing couples to avoid sex when you know that the man has no intention of doing so is simply avoiding the issue.

Since the woman will be exposed to death, which will deprive her of life and her four other children of a mother, it seems that the Church ought to be able to offer a little more guidance than "well, unite your sufferings to those of Christ."

you offer abstention. Since when did you get to make what are God's offers. I prefer to think that God offered a condom to protect this woman. That seems a whole lot more loving. But who am I to know? And who are you to know? You sir are not religious at heart, you are cold and presumptious to think that you know God.

I offer abstaining from sex.

That is the answer, of course. And if the husband insists and overcomes her will, that is an assault and should be seen and judged as such. If he carries the AIDS virus it is an aggravated assault, perhaps even attempted murder.

Using this analysis, if the woman seeks or freely consents to an aggravated assault, she is fully complicit in the offense and is not without guilt herself.

This answer won't please those who worship at the altar of sexual permissiveness and indulgence, but they've missed the point badly anyway.

Sodomy in general and anal sodomy in particular are assaults, violent and offensive attacks on the human body, and ought to be seen and judged as such. Sodomy has in the past 20 years maimed and killed more men, women, and children in this country than we have lost in all our wars and armed conflicts combined.

Wearing a condom when one engages in anal sodomy is no better than wearing boxing gloves when one pummels an opponent in a ring.