Your Tax Dollars At Work

10 Responses to Your Tax Dollars At Work

1. jhayes says:

   9 July 2013 at 6:50 PM

   Interesting question: has the Church taken a position on the use of condoms by same sex couples?

   Of course , the Church teaches that sex between same sex couples is wrong in any case, but does the use of a condom increase the gravity of the sin or stand as a separate sin in itself?

   For heterosexual couples, a condom frustrates the procreative act but that analysis doesn’t apply to same sex couples, whose activity is non-procreative in any case.
2. Pnkn says:

   9 July 2013 at 7:03 PM

   Seems to me as if the NIH thinks that only foreign born gay men who can read “Spanish” are at risk….that would not seem to be a demographic that is politically promotable; or else there would appear to be callous disregard for the lives of non-Spanish reading foreign born gay men.

   To jhayes – Didn’t Pope BenedictXVI make a statement on the use of condoms by homosexual men during an interview on a flight to Africa ?

   http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20101221_luce-del-mondo_en.html

   http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2010/11/23/condoms-may-be-first-step-in-moralisation-of-sexuality-says-pope/

   http://catholicism.about.com/b/2010/11/23/pope-benedict-and-condoms-what-he-did-and-did-not-say.htm
3. Legisperitus says:

   9 July 2013 at 7:25 PM

   jhayes: That sounds like a persuasive analysis to me. How could a condom make that particular sin any worse?
4. jhayes says:

   9 July 2013 at 7:50 PM

   PnKn, thanks for he links. I’ll read the artivcles when I get home.

   It seems to have become an important issue since AIDS has become a readily treatable disease. From what I’ve read, cases have risen as people are now less likely to take the precautions (condoms, etc) they did when AIDS was a death sentence,
5. acardnal says:

   9 July 2013 at 8:02 PM

   Fornication is a mortal sin.

   Adultery is a mortal sin.

   Homosexual behavior is a mortal sin.

   A mortal sin is mortal sin. One goes to hell when knowingly committing a mortal sin. One loses sanctifying grace. The use or non-use of condoms in these cases is immaterial.
6. Indulgentiam says:

   9 July 2013 at 9:26 PM

   What a stupid colossal waste of money. The CDC, Scientific community, indeed almost everyone in healthcare is aware of the joke condom studies are. These studies use self reporting from test subjects. EVERYONE knows that the test subjects are lying. Social scientists call this “social desirability bias.” In Atlanta at the 20th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections scientists Dawn Smith has presented results from her study. She researched 2 larger studies and found that homosexual men who used condoms intermittently(that would be the vast majority) contracted aids at the same rate as those who used nothing.
   Read her study results here—http://mobile.aidsmap.com/Consistent-condom-use-in-anal-sex-stops-70-of-HIV-infections-study-finds-but-intermittent-use-has-no-effect/page/2586976/

   IMHO this wacko president is just trying to beggar this nation.
   Queen of the most Holy Rosary pray for us.
7. Minnesotan from Florida says:

   9 July 2013 at 10:04 PM

   In the case of fornication or adultery, the sexual act is not contrary to nature; the sin lies in the persons involved and their connections with other persons. Thus I should think that the use of a condom would aggravate the sin. In the case of a homosexual “union,” I like other contributors think that the use or nonuse of condom does not aggravate the sin; if it reduces the risk of disease transmission, it MIGHT in some way be morally good.
8. Ben Kenobi says:

   9 July 2013 at 10:28 PM

   Ooh! I need just one more for a bingo. “Immigrant”. “Gay” “Spanish” “Condom”
9. Ben Kenobi says:

   9 July 2013 at 10:32 PM

   @Minnesotan

   Would it be less morally wrong if I shot someone with a .22 or a M1? Does it matter that a person shot by a .22 might suffer less before dying than someone shot by an M1?

   Mitigating the consequences of sin doesn’t change the sinful act. In fact, in many cases, attempts to mitigate the consequences of sin will encourage others to participate.
10. jhayes says:

    10 July 2013 at 12:01 PM

    PnKn, thanks, i have now read the links you provided:

    From the The Catholic Herald

    Benedict XVI has said that if those with HIV use a condom with “the intention of reducing the risk of infection” it might be the “first step in the direction of a moralisation” of sexuality.

    He made the comment in Light of the World, a book-length interview with German journalist Peter Seewald, which was published today.

    Although Pope Benedict used the example of a male prostitute, the Vatican has clarified that his comments applied to both sexes.

    http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2010/11/23/condoms-may-be-first-step-in-moralisation-of-sexuality-says-pope/

    In this regard, it must be noted that the situation created by the spread of AIDS in many areas of the world has made the problem of prostitution even more serious. Those who know themselves to be infected with HIV and who therefore run the risk of infecting others, apart from committing a sin against the sixth commandment are also committing a sin against the fifth commandment – because they are consciously putting the lives of others at risk through behaviour which has repercussions on public health. In this situation, the Holy Father clearly affirms that the provision of condoms does not constitute “the real or moral solution” to the problem of AIDS and also that “the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality” in that it refuses to address the mistaken human behaviour which is the root cause of the spread of the virus. In this context, however, it cannot be denied that anyone who uses a condom in order to diminish the risk posed to another person is intending to reduce the evil connected with his or her immoral activity. In this sense the Holy Father points out that the use of a condom “with the intention of reducing the risk of infection, can be a first step in a movement towards a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.” This affirmation is clearly compatible with the Holy Father’s previous statement that this is “not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection.”

    Some commentators have interpreted the words of Benedict XVI according to the so-called theory of the “lesser evil”. This theory is, however, susceptible to proportionalistic misinterpretation (cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis splendor, n. 75-77). An action which is objectively evil, even if a lesser evil, can never be licitly willed. The Holy Father did not say – as some people have claimed – that prostitution with the use of a condom can be chosen as a lesser evil. The Church teaches that prostitution is immoral and should be shunned. However, those involved in prostitution who are HIV positive and who seek to diminish the risk of contagion by the use of a condom may be taking the first step in respecting the life of another – even if the evil of prostitution remains in all its gravity. This understanding is in full conformity with the moral theological tradition of the Church.
    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20101221_luce-del-mondo_en.html

Comments are closed.