Theological Question

[dairygirl4u2c]

ty

[KnightofChrist]

I would report him to the Police for attempted murder. Someone who knowingly has HIV and continues to have sex can be charged with attempted murder. Last I knew anyway...

[catholicinsd]

If one gets HIV he or she should remain celebate.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Just because he insists on continuing to have sex doesn't mean you should condone it. You should condemn contraception AND fornication, but you can't make up his mind for him.

It might also be moral, assuming there is a bond of confession, to warn those he wants to have sex with.

[goldenchild17]

with no other options given I'd still say no. It's an evil act on his part and can harm others. But two wrongs are not okay just because one is going to happen anyways.

[Mr.Cat]

I would say no, artificial contraception is a moral evil... It said I already voted on this but I thought I hit null vote... so if I hit yes it was not intended...

Edited February 1, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Knight of the Holy Rosary]

Absolutely not. Telling someone it's ok to commit a mortal sin because their too stubborn to give up another mortal sin is dangerous for both his and you soul.

Edited February 1, 2007 by Knight of the Holy Rosary

[dairygirl4u2c]

i find it funny that someone said "i refuse to speculate", as if someone in that situation asked you what to do you'd say "i refuse to speculate" instead of guiding them as to the moral legitmacy or lackthereof of the situation.

i think this problem presents yet another reason why the ends does not justify the means can be unreasonable when applied all the time. i understand how you'd insist that he not do both, but to say that reason justifies saying no to him is strained reasoning. if he's insisting on doing it, your premise for saying no is not there. i guess i didn't make it clear in my hypo, but what if his use of it or not is bound soley by your advice. you know that he's goig to continue, yet you did not advise him to use it. i'd argue that in fact you are aiding in the wrong if you have that persuasion.
calling the police and in hopes somehting can be done or trying to warn others is just a way to not truly face the the situation.

i bet this is yet another status quo conservative issue that people say just because they are told they have to say no, or in fact it is even wisest to say no as a moral norm to sitautions similar to this. i bet the CC doesn't even teach as dogma that the ends not justify th means all the time, let along sometimes, is the teaching, yet people insist on following it as if it is. they have the option to consider otherwise, but insist on following status quo conservative, which isn't necessarily the truth, and as a rule sometimes is not. (which is probably the case here)

Edited February 1, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

here's what I say: I cannot recommend fornication with or without a condom. I oppose contraception because it destroys the sacredness of the marital union... for evil is not a positive reality but rather a twisting of what is good.

a man who plans to engage in fornication is twisting what is good about sex. morally speaking, he would add upon himself more mortal sins by adding the sin of contraception. he would increase the evil he is doing.

but the fornication is already evil. it is already twisted good. what a condom would do is make that good even more unrecognizable.

it is a greater evil for him. but if he is to do this evil anyway, he no longer has any right to be righteous as regards sexual morality. he already has a conscience which is formed against sexual morality; so for such a one to appeal to the baser levels of his conscience which teach him to do no harm to others and use a condom: that is not the regular sin of contraception. it is still, in objective morality, adding sin upon sin.

but I am not going to suggest to him not to add sin upon sin. I am not going to suggest to him: have fornication without a condom. I am going to say: do not have fornication. if he obstinently refuses, I would say: follow your conscience about whether to protect this girl from your HIV, you sick monster who already intends to twist God's beautiful design and fornicate in a most disgraceful manner. Do not spread HIV.

[quote]i bet the CC doesn't even teach as dogma that the ends not justify th means all the time, let along sometimes, is the teaching, yet people insist on following it as if it is. they have the option to consider otherwise, but insist on following status quo conservative, which isn't necessarily the truth, and as a rule sometimes is not. (which is probably the case here)
[/quote]
as regards ends not justifying the means: Catholic moral teaching is clear that one may not do evil in order to accomplish good. This is an objective moral principal in a vacuum, but it is also the infallible and binding teaching of the Catholic Church; and it most certainly applies to this situation. That the man wears a condom is an evil thing, and he has piled on another sin to his soul on top of his sin of fornication. This makes him all the worser off, morally speaking. But for the man to commit the sin of fornication and not wear a condom, he would be breaking the Fifth Commandment with his depraved indifference for human life, putting it at risk. Either way, he's committing two mortal sins. Either way, he's damning himself in more ways than one.

It is not a good, by any stretch of the imagination, for him to wear a condom. It is also not a good, by any stretch of the imagination, for him to not wear a condom.

[dairygirl4u2c]

if there are any catholic who strive to be true to the church, and thinks they are truly fulfilling the mind of the church and not trying to change it or anything... and still say yes to this hypo ... you should make yourself known. i'd shake your hand if i could.
also it'd be even cooler if you argued for your yes position, but i won't ask for too much i guess...

[dairygirl4u2c]

this was an interesting 'ends means' hypothetical.

 

i think i've heard that when one is forced to choose between two evils, they must and can permissibly choose the lesser.

 

it's not like the man is 'forced' to choose, but he does have two evils at his disposal. spreading HIV or wearing contraceptives.

 

it might seem like it'd be permissible for a catholic to advise the man to wear the condom, despite the fact that it's said to be evil, due to the fact that HIV spreading is even more evil.

 

no?

[dairygirl4u2c]

it actually blows my mind that people said 'no' so much to this question. i can respect being hesitant against advising contraceptives, but this is placing religion above human lives to some extent. it seems like a warped world view.