Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
Does the Church then fall back on the principle of double effect?

How is this a "fall back" position? It is a valid moral principle.

Besides, Catholic moral principles become an element when the person in question begins the road to repentance and conversion of life and manners. The others care less about the principles of living a good, moral life. They can't or won't reason morally.

"Concessions" to double-effect are only relevant to those who are beginning to walk in Christ.

-Theo

58 posted on 11/30/2010 7:17:06 AM PST by Teófilo (Visit Vivificat! - http://www.vivificat.org - A Catholic Blog of News, Commentary and Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]


To: Teófilo
My primary concern in all this was expressed in post #23. You blogged on this subject today also, which just reinforces what I said in post #23:

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

WaPo: Pope May Be Right on Condom Failure to Stop Spread of AIDS in Africa

Folks, this according to Edward C. Green of The Washington Post":

When Pope Benedict XVI commented this month that condom distribution isn't helping, and may be worsening, the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa, he set off a firestorm of protest. Most non-Catholic commentary has been highly critical of the pope. A cartoon in the Philadelphia Inquirer, reprinted in The Post, showed the pope somewhat ghoulishly praising a throng of sick and dying Africans: "Blessed are the sick, for they have not used condoms."

Yet, in truth, current empirical evidence supports him.

We liberals who work in the fields of global HIV/AIDS and family planning take terrible professional risks if we side with the pope on a divisive topic such as this. The condom has become a symbol of freedom and -- along with contraception -- female emancipation, so those who question condom orthodoxy are accused of being against these causes. My comments are only about the question of condoms working to stem the spread of AIDS in Africa's generalized epidemics -- nowhere else.

In 2003, Norman Hearst and Sanny Chen of the University of California conducted a condom effectiveness study for the United Nations' AIDS program and found no evidence of condoms working as a primary HIV-prevention measure in Africa. UNAIDS quietly disowned the study. (The authors eventually managed to publish their findings in the quarterly Studies in Family Planning.) Since then, major articles in other peer-reviewed journals such as the Lancet, Science and BMJ have confirmed that condoms have not worked as a primary intervention in the population-wide epidemics of Africa. In a 2008 article in Science called "Reassessing HIV Prevention" 10 AIDS experts concluded that "consistent condom use has not reached a sufficiently high level, even after many years of widespread and often aggressive promotion, to produce a measurable slowing of new infections in the generalized epidemics of Sub-Saharan Africa."

Read it all here.

Commentary. Remember the big stink raised last year when the Pope said exactly this? He was condemned and ridiculed in Parliaments across Europe and, of course, at the San Francisco City Council.

But, as you see, the Pope was right.

It’s nice to see Mr. Green graciously wiping the egg from his face. I want to see the other critics eating crow publicly.

But that’s not going to happen because it wasn’t science what fed their protest, but hatred toward the Pope, the Church, and ultimately, toward God in Christ.

Knowing the abysmal failure rate of condoms in "preventing" AIDS...

Norman Hearst and Sanny Chen of the University of California conducted a condom effectiveness study for the United Nations' AIDS program and found no evidence of condoms working as a primary HIV-prevention measure in Africa.

...why would the Pope make this statement about condoms which has caused all this controversy in the first place? The idea that condom use by male prostitutes itself might be effective in stopping the spread of AIDS is a falsehood, so any statement of relative merit is moot.

It was grossly imprudent in almost every sense in which it can be considered.

68 posted on 11/30/2010 9:06:27 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM (Liberalism is infecund.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]

To: Teófilo
Stopping the Spread of HIV/AIDS--A Response

by Mons. Jacques Suaudeau

© L'Osservatore Romano, Editorial and Management Offices, Via del Pellegrino, 00120, Vatican City, Europe, Telephone 39/6/698.99.390.

With regard to the article "Prophylactics or family values? Stopping the spread of HIV/AIDS", which I published in the Italian daily edition of L'Observatore Romano on Wednesday, 5 April 2000, p. 7, and in the English edition of 19 April 2000, there have been certain erroneous interpretations concerning the following passage:

"In the case of Thailand, the effort of the health-care authorities was focused on prostitutes and their clients. The use of condoms had particularly good results for these people with regard to the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. {22} However it is unclear whether or not the promotion of condoms in this country has had an effect on the overall advance of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.{23} The use of prophylactics in these circumstances is actually a 'lesser evil', but it cannot be proposed as a model of humanization and development. Perhaps Thailand's authorities might have asked themselves first about the reasons for the particular growth of prostitution in their country".

22. R.S. Hanenberg, W. Rojanapithayakorn, P.m. Kunasol, D.C. Sokal, "Impact of Thailand's HIV-Control Programme as Indicated by the Decline of Sexually Transmitted Diseases", The Lancet 1994, 344 (8917):243-245.

J. Richens, J. Imrie, A. Copas, "Condoms and Seat Belts", ibid., p. 401.

The following should be clearly pointed out:

1. Any interpretation of my article as claiming to attempt to cast doubt on the Church's official teaching on this point has absolutely no foundation. I have already published many articles in this regard against the use of condoms in the prevention of HIV/AIDS in scientific and moral publications which can attest, beyond any doubt, to my attitude on this issue, on which I have been working for many years.

2. The use of condoms, as I state in my article, "cannot be proposed as a model of humanization and development", because it is always an intrinsic objective moral disorder.

3. The expression "lesser evil" (in inverted commas), was used in the strictly medical sense of public health, in the context of the epidemiological medical articles quoted in notes n. 22 and n. 23, and must consequently be understood not in the moral sense, but exclusively in an epidemiological sense.

Rome, September 22, 2000

Fr. Jacques Suaudeau

74 posted on 11/30/2010 11:16:52 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM (Liberalism is infecund.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson