Well, honestly, he probably shouldn’t be having sex with his wife after contracting AIDS.
Sounds like someone has a bad case of sour grapes.
From my perspective, it’s just relief.
Here is an earlier discussion, laying out the RCC’s more nuanced position (from a couple of years back). Of course, Cardinal Trujillo (who does not actually happen to be the pope, BTW) seems to have gone off in his own little world, clinging to outdated scientific speculations because they coincided with his personal beliefs. (The cases of the odd claims attributed to priests in the TV show seem to indicate the general ignorance of a lot of people regarding AIDS and HIV, rather than an actual church-inspired position, although it is clear that stupid comments like those of Trujillo can only support that ignorance.)
This is just un-fucking-believable. Fuck you, Vatican.
tomndebb, thanks…but the article doesn’t really address the issue of whether the RCC thinks it is acceptable for married partners to use condoms even if pregnancy is a) not going to happen in any case, or b) medically inadvisable.
(For contrast, the Jewish position: a co-worker of mine is Orthodox and had a very, very difficult pregnancy and delivery, such that she was told she would be putting her life in danger if she had any more children. She hasn’t, but as Judaism encourages sex within marriage even without the possibility of conception, because it is a means of drawing the couple closer together emotionally and spiritually, I believe it’s OK for her in this circumstance to use contraception. Orthodox Dopers, please correct me if I’ve misunderstood something. But I must say I admire the distinct practicality of this approach, even though I’m not observant myself. I think it’s a better balance of the needs of the human beings involved than the RCC position as I understand it.)
Why not? If she’s aware of the risk and is okay with it then what’s the harm. With sensible precautions I don’t believe it’s that lethal.
Anyway, so most of the time the Pope isn’t officially infallible. Does that mean an average Catholic can ignore him without feeling guilty, or having to confess, or whatever?
Out of a desire to have my ignorance irradicated, does the RCC have an official policy on alternate forms of sexual expression between a man and wife? If the couple in the quoted post are told to abstain from intercourse, is the implicit meaning that they should also abstain from any other means of sexual expression?
Not coincidence at all. Think about it, without governmental support of monogamous relationships, gay society could (stress could) be less inclined (than straight society) to have those types of relationships. How many married men avoid cheating not because they don’t want to, but because it’ll result in a divorce that will screw up their lives? Throw children into the mix and you get more pressure to not screw around.
Put another way, straights have more incentive to have monogamous relationships, marriage and children. Monogamy reduces the speed at which STDs are transmitted through a population. Therefore an STD like AIDS would be less of a problem for straights, more of a problem for gays. I wonder if this is also true for other STDs…
Individually, nobody is barring gays from being monogamous, but there could be an effect there.
So what happens to someone who does this, and then bam! She’s raped by someone with HIV!
Or her husband gets HIV from a needlestick injury at the hospital?
Fuck you, Brutus.
It just pisses me off. The church can be so fucking progressive on the rest of life-education, science, art, literature, humanitarian concerns. But when it comes to sex, they’re back in the fucking Dark Ages!
Except the church forbids this option for gay people.
As has been pointed out, it also doesn’t take into account a number of other causes for AIDS. Of all the dumbass things you’ve said on this board this is one of the dumbest.
I’m not a Canon Lawyer (hello Bricker?) or a theologian…but FWIW
The church generally teaches that sexual actions should be “open to the possibility of procreation”. In this case, that notion is in conflict with the medical health of the woman. Since procreation is out of the picture, I don’t know why other sexual expressions would be frowned upon.
I doubt that there is an “official” teaching that would cover such an occurence, however.
True. What it points out is that the Church will always take the stricter position when setting out theological positions (abstinence rather than prophylactic), but that when confronted with pastoral considerations, the Church will tend to back off from holding the theological positions, rigidly.
The Church will simply never (in my view of the forseeable future) make a statement that condones condoms under any circumstances. Instead, it will address, separately, the issue of whether condoms provide a “lesser evil” that can be used to contain disease.
In the same way, I doubt that the Church will ever back away from the stance that every sexual act must be open to procreation. On the other hand very few blithering idiots will take a position openly condemning every form of non-coital sex. (There will be a few of such idiots, but they will be few and they will not speak from a position of setting doctrine.)
IANACL as well, but my copy of the official Church doctrine (This Is Catholicism, which bears both the nihil obstat and the imprimatur of the Church) states that what it delicately refers to as “other activities relating to the act of marriage” are perfectly acceptable for a married couple.
Perhaps you could enlighten us, Diogenes. Exactly how many causes do you believe AIDS has? I can only think of one, the HIV virus.
Surely you are not implying that gay sex causes AIDS, are you?
Since we don’t want dumbass things to pass unchallenged…
Regards,
Shodan
Not at all. AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease. Do you know what that means? That means that the HIV virus is primarily transmitted through sexual contact. By controlling that contact, you control the virus.
If you are looking to be offended, let me know, and I can taylor-make a ‘Offend Zenster’ post. But don’t wildly attribute statements to me that I did not make.
Just out of curiousity how many of you would be willing to have sex with someone you knew had full-blown AIDS if they wore a condom?
Hypothetically, of course. Factor in love/marriage/whatever you want.
Aww, hell no! That’s whack! I hope they got a second opinion!
Since I just said it wasn’t that dangerous I really should be willing to back that up. And maybe yeah, though it’s a lot easier to say that in the hypothetical. Much more likely if I’m already married\seriously involved with the person.
Some churches are behind most of society, some are ahead, most are about level. In a few decades various facets of this will be just more passed milestones for 90% of organised religions in the West. Eh.
RYAN WHITE, YOU SLUT!!!
<<<shakes head>>>
Brutus, once again, shut the fuck up. I have no idea how you could be so fucking ignorant and read the SDMB for as long as you have.
I guess drug addicts ought to stop having sex with those needles. 
And newborns have really got to quit the in utero screwing around. Freud nonwithstanding, they aren’t supposed to have any sexual urges at that age!