An extensive and well-reported review, on the Newshour, of the Vatican AIDS Conference, with interviews with some key figures.
PBS on the Vatican AIDS Conference
The latest from america
“His presence brings prestige to our nation and to the entire Group of 7. It is the first time that a pope will participate in the work of the G7,” Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said.
“Many conflicting, divergent and often contradictory views of the human person have found wide acceptance … they have led to holders of traditional theories being cancelled or even losing their jobs,” the bishops said.
Robots can give you facts. But they can’t give you faith.
“Irena’s Vow” is true story of a Catholic nurse who used her position to shelter a dozen Jews in World War II-era Poland.
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?
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.
I hope to see this topic re-posted in textual form of one sort of another.