PBS on the Vatican AIDS Conference

An extensive and well-reported review, on the Newshour, of the Vatican AIDS Conference, with interviews with some key figures.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Michael Barberi
7 years 4 months ago
Thank you Fr. Martin for this most provacative report from the Vatican Conference on HIV-AIDS. 

The Church asserts that permanent conjugal abstinence or celibacy is the only licit answer for serodiscordent couples with one spouse infected with HIV. The use of condoms is illicit because it violates Humanae Vitae and spouses fail to respect the aptness of generation (the penis must be inserted into the vagina and semen deposited in its proper place for procreation). The following arguments call into question the reasonability and sensibility of this teaching.

    Did not the ethical context change in this situation? By using a condom would not the HIV positive husband perform an act of Health and Safety, a form of the virtues of charity and justice for his wife. What happened physically, perventing procreative consequences, was foreseen but outside of intentions.
    Would not celibacy for a young couple be an act of injustice, an unreasonable cross to bear, that is not proportionate to the survivability of the marriage?
    By using a condom, would not the husband perform an act of charity and prudence if he rejects celibacy in order to express conjugal love for his wife? Or is the aptness of generation the supreme moral obligation for this couple regardless of circumstances, intentions or consequences?
7 years 4 months ago
One comment?  Perhaps after a 9-minute video most don't have the time to comment?  Or has this topic been beaten to death in previous posts?

I'm intrigued by the Vatican's consistent demand for behavioral change (on this and other social issues) rather than acquiescence to the inevitability of the bad behavior and re-assessing its moral position on other bad behaviors to avoid the negative consequences of the first behavior.  Taking the latter position is like teaching children to wear asbestos gloves before sticking their hands in the fire.  Or like permitting would-be pedophile priests to have sexual liaisons with over-18 young men with latent adolescence. God forbid anyone deny themselves and take up their crosses. 
7 years 4 months ago
Davd - My first comment was going to suggest that the blogger was not really blogging by posting a video clip, but I understand that we're all busy.

I hope to see this topic re-posted in textual form of one sort of another.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The latest from america

 10.17.2018 Pope Francis greets Cardinal Blase J. Cupich of Chicago before a session of the Synod of Bishops on young people, the faith and vocational discernment at the Vatican Oct. 16. (CNS photo/Vatican Media)
“We take people where they are, walking with them, moving forward,” Cardinal Blase Cupich said.
Michael J. O’LoughlinOctober 20, 2018
Catherine Pakaluk, who currently teaches at the Catholic University of America and holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University, describes her tweet to Mr. Macron as “spirited” and “playful.”
Emma Winters October 19, 2018
A new proposal from the Department of Homeland Security could make it much more difficult for legal immigrants to get green cards in the United States. But even before its implementation, the proposal has led immigrants to avoid receiving public benefits.
J.D. Long-GarcíaOctober 19, 2018
 Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, then nuncio to the United States, and then-Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, are seen in a combination photo during the beatification Mass of Blessed Miriam Teresa Demjanovich at the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart in Newark, N.J., Oct. 4, 2014. (CNS photo/Gregory A. Shemitz)
In this third letter Archbishop Viganò no longer insists, as he did so forcefully in his first letter, that the restrictions that he claimed Benedict XVI had imposed on Archbishop McCarrick—one he alleges that Pope Francis later lifted—can be understood as “sanctions.”
Gerard O’ConnellOctober 19, 2018