www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News ETHIOPIA: Church leader warns against spread of AIDS

Kurt, I understand where you are going with this but there is a flaw to your logic.

For example, a woman's doctor puts her on the pill to correct some problem unrelated to contraception. That is, she takes the pill for some reason other than trying to not get pregnant.

Now that is not a sinful act as it's purpose is to keep her healthy.

Now your suggestion is that we look at condom use to prevent HIV infection in the same light. This is flawed because the act that is performed, sex out side of marriage, is sinful to begin with.

Not only that, but we must look at the failure rate of condoms. There are studies that show condoms have a failure rate of between 10-12 percent in the prevention of pregnancy. With this fact, how can anyone argue for their use in preventing HIV infection.

Its like playing russian roulette, only instead of the odds being 1 in 6 to get shot in the head, which some people have survived, its 1 in 10 chance of getting HIV, which no one survives.

David

@work,

I appreciate your change of heart on this. I don't think anyone is sayingthis is an easy issue.It is just we must be very careful in chosing our words.

David,

I think you might be making a false assumption that only unmarried people have sex.

But if the dicussion is now no longer the confusion of contraception and the use of of condoms but narrowed to the technical and medical issues of their HIV prevention effectivness, it has now moved from a religious discussion to a medical one.

K.

Hey David,

Justin. You are the David from the catholic-pages - no?

You remember me right - Justin Morgan or aka Justin V.

Nice to see you again... or would that be read you again

Well I jumped on here to exchange a few words (in a good way) with Abdur - the Muslim addition to this community Well I'm still limiting my internet chating I guess you can say - have other things in my life to still attend to more seriously - but I think I'll be around here a few days to what trouble I can get into LOL!

Anyways look forward to eventualy coming back to the catholic-pages Peace!

If I may make a comment from an admittedly Latin perspective. I see this type of thing often in our church. People say things like "Rome's insistence that priests remain celibate causes them to turn to molesting young boys. If only you let them have wives, then they would not have to do this." This is similar. To sum up the argument on this, in so far as it is used to attack the position of the Vatican, which the patriarch in question is likely not doing: "X number of people are getting AIDS each year. Therefore, we must encourage condoms in order to combat this. Since the Vatican is disallowing this, they are promoting the death of these people." Or something to that effect.

However, these are impossible positions if considered carefully. Imagine the first, the priest, and what he must go through for this situation to happen: "Wow! I am really driven by these sexual urges, but to have a girlfriend is a sin. So I will rape the altar boy!" Hmmm. This makes no sense. If the Vatican has the power to stop a sinful act by condemning it, as in not taking a wife or girlfriend, then the act of raping and molesting young boys must not be happening, as this is a much greater sin than fornication. The Vatican condemns both acts, but the latter much more strongly than the discipline of priests.

The AIDS/Condom issue, both domestically and worldwide is similar. We are confronted with the charge that because it is a sin to not use contraceptives there are more cases of AIDS. But it is a sin to have sex outside of marriage in the first place. And, by the way, even in a marriage, for one of the people to be infected, and thus to force a choice on the spouse, there must have been adultery present. Two monogamous people will not be infected otherwise, excepting exposure like surgery, dentistry, or transfusions. Last time I checked, my risks of infections do not seriously decrease if my surgeon wears a condom during surgery, so I doubt this is the exposure being addressed here.

So, if declaring something wrong is as powerful as these people declare, then no problem can exist. The fact that problems do exist show that sin prevails. The Church condoning sin will not help matters as it is obvious that people are ignoring the Church on these matters in the first place.

Lastly, I would like to say that I am quite saddened by the earlier posts speaking of equating the praise of the office of Peter with an erection. One would have to search, and I did after reading the objection, to see such vulgarity. It is clear that no such "joke" was intended, and the objection speaks more to the mind of the reader than the writer.

God bless,

Patricius

Pat,

I think the Patriarch shares you moral reasoning but has a different and more accurate understanding of several factual points.

K.

Kurt,

Many thanks for the response. Please, though, I am very interested in how you feel I was inaccurate in my understanding of the facts.

God bless,

Patricius

I think Africa is dissimilar to the United States.

It would help if you would elaborate on this paragraph you posted:


Particularly, could you explore the situations you don't address here. Also, could you put some (even wild, ballpark) estimates on the percentage of Africans you think fall into the various situations. Even "negligable, a few many, most" would be helpful.

K.

K.

[ 01-23-2002: Message edited by: Kurt ]

I lost a lot of respect for the copts when I read their website lacopts.org and found this:

http://www.lacopts.org/Perspectives/FamilyPlanning.htm

Especially "amusing" was Pope Shenouda's quote about having to fight against "overpopulation." Guess he doesn't realize that by 2050, there will be a major population decline in the world that will really cause some major problems.

I don't like being a whiner though. Would anyone be willing to help me compose a letter to Bishop Serapion who wrote the above article and help me correct his flawed understanding both of biological issues and Church morality? In his article he seems to be going way beyond 'economia' and more towards active support for contraception.

Either I'd like someone to actually help me write the letter, or I'd like to just be able to print up something that we can get a lot of signatures on so that the good bishop can see the other point of view.

anastasios

Kurt,

Thanks again. As to your first point, all places are dissimilar. Your second and third points are problematic. I intentionally only discussed one 'situation', which is regarding that claim so often made, especially in the international stage, that the Vatican should promote condoms in order to slow the growth of AIDS. This claim is untenable for the reasons I have given. As to other "situations" why would I discuss them? In what way are they relevant to my position on the discrepencies in the claims that the Vatican teaching on contraceptives, as well as the discipline of priesthood celibacy, are counterproductive? I believe a better question would be why you believe that I am inaccurate in my position regarding these claims? If I am inaccurate, then I must assume that you believe that celibacy actually contributes to child molestation? How? I would assume the same for the case made that the Vatican actually contributes to new AIDS incidents with their condemnation of contraceptives. Please clarify your opinions on those subjects, so I can better understand your problems with my original post.

Your third point actually confuses me a bit. By "situations" here, do you mean how they became exposed and infected? If so it really does not seem relevant to my point. Condoms only protect from sexual exposure, and so that is the only relevant issue. Other exposures do happen, and I am sure quite often in Africa, considering the differing availabilities of healthcare technology and such there. I would certainly not make claims to any solid facts on just how solid such technology or procedures are.

However, and this is why I did not bother to discuss this in my original post, if this is the real issue, then why is there no call for a change in healthcare procedures or technology? Why the public obsession with the Vatican's position in regards to contraceptives? It would be pretty silly to allow exposure in many places, and then try to keep only the sexual partner protected. My suggestion would be to focus on the primary source, and save many, many more lives. But, perhaps I am misreading your intentions. Please, be more specific on your thoughts so we can all gain from your perspective. There is really no need for undue circumspection.

God bless,

Patrick

[ 01-23-2002: Message edited by: patricivs ]

Dear Anastasios,

Hopefully, he won't understand this as a "Copt out."

I wonder why, as a religious minority in Egypt, he is worried about overpopulation?

And all my friends who were taught the evils of overpopulation in school are having three and four children.

Alex

Pat,

Yes, I agree with you that that small element overexercised that the Vatican should promote condoms in order to slow the growth of AIDS is not a serious question. The Catholic Church (which is not the same as the Vatican) provides 25% of the health care PWAs receive. That is commendable. Catholic organs should follow Catholic principles and use their best judgement in providing health care. Nothing the Catholic Church does directly promotes AIDS.

The Vatican has issued no criticism of H.B. the Patriarch of Ethiopia. Some individual Catholics have taken objection to the Patriarch and suggested a break in our current ecumencial relationship over the issue of the use of condoms to prevent HIV transmission.

You ask "why is there no call for a change in healthcare [in Africa]?" Actually calls for change are being made and the Catholic Church is among those making these calls. While these calls have not yet received the needed response, your suggestion to focus on the primary cause has been responded to positively. But focus and exclusive action are not the same things.

So we are left with many unsolved problems, many different situations and many different actors, all with no ability to achieve comprehensive solutions.

So, we commend Catholic health care for all it does, we commend other volunatary agencies for the worj they do, we commend the Oriental Orthodox Church for what it does.

The only social elements we cannot commend, are those who announce they have a comprehensive solution, and, having so announced, hold that by that act they have morally satisfied theor obligations to love their neighbor.

K.

Kurt,

You said:

Glad to hear that you feel that way.


As I see it, the approach of the Holy See to other churches is beyond my criticism. I can see no reason, personally, in the statement of that Patriarch first posted here to protest or object to our current relationship, or that which is sought by Rome. That is not to say that I would entirely agree with him. Of course, this is the opinion of a simple layman.


If you don't mind, I am curious as to what you have in mind as some of the "different situations?" Are you speaking of, again, methods of transmission? If so, I would love to know more about what you have in mind, as well as your position in reference to these? By the way, this is not meant as a challenge, I am simply very curious as to your thoughts.


Who do you have in mind here? I am always a bit gun-shy of the "love your neighbor" conversations. They usually tend to move into the realm of "if you don't like my position on this, then you must just not love them." For instance, I am opposed to that system now in place in America which lets social workers investigate and remove children from their homes in direct defiance of due process. When I have mentioned this to people, such as coworkers, I was often, and by that I mean almost always, confronted with "Why don't you love children enough to keep them from being abused?" or something to that general effect. It is often "oppose medicare: hate the elderly, oppose mandatory public education (an oxymoron, imo): hate kids, etc." So, I am very interested in your feelings on this.

Thanks for your continued clarifications and discussions.

God bless,

Patricius

[ 01-23-2002: Message edited by: patricivs ]

Forgive me, Anastasios, if I didn't read the article as carefully as I should've, but what is in Anba Serapion's article that doesn't agree with current Eastern Orthodox opinion on artificial birth control, which many hold to be legit? (Pardon me again if I don't understand the EO position as it is; I thought that the EO position held by many is that it's a matter left up to the couple and his/her/their spiritual father, and that any method used shouldn't be an abortifacient...if I have it wrong, please explain it to me.)

I myself don't buy the overpopulation argument for the reasons that you state, but as to the rest? It seems to jive with my understanding of the EO position. Are the EO's wrong, then?

The Copts, from my very limited experience, seem to be the ones in the OO family that more readily accept stuff like this...the Syrian Church, to my knowledge (I've never seen otherwise), as I've said in another post, doesn't advocate artificial birth control. Period. I would think the Armenians are the same way, though I don't know. It seems that the Copts, in many things, side with the EO's, while the Syrians and others, in many of those same respects, side with the RCC view. Perhaps that's a wrong view or idea from my part, but that's the way it's seemed to me.

Dear Catholicos,

I too have read the article and the theology behind it is not only, it seems to me, in agreement with EO and OO but with RC teaching as well - apart from the method of birth control to be practiced.

Although there are RC theologians who would also agree fully with the entire article.

Alex

Mor Ephrem,

There are several things at work here, in my opinion:

1) I do believe that the EO position on contraception is wrong and against the clear tradition of the church. St. Basil for instance does not make the same distinction between contracpetion and abortion that we moderns do.

2) I understand the EO position. At times I have felt in the one instance that pregnancy would result in the death of the mother, that some form of contraception could be employed. At other times, I wondered what about Natural Family Planning couldn't be utilized in the same circumstance, though.

3) Bishop Serapion is actually encouraging contraception, which is NOT what the EO position does.

4) I don't believe that the supposed "second type" of IUD actually works the way Bishop Serapion does. It seems to be a mutilation of the body at best, a device that prevents implantation of a soul-endowed baby at worst.

I would like to see the Copts adopt the Catholic position on this matter.

anastasios