The National Catholic Review

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

Comments

Anonymous | 6/4/2011 - 2:58pm
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.
Anonymous | 6/3/2011 - 10:20am
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. 
Michael Barberi | 6/1/2011 - 9:23pm
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?