tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post930147784429576791..comments2024-03-21T04:02:46.799-07:00Comments on Little Catholic Bubble: Just because I don't like your ideas doesn't mean I think you are evil.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comBlogger129125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-68201387490543963342010-12-06T14:12:09.161-07:002010-12-06T14:12:09.161-07:00http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexualit...http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html<br /><br />Here's the link for anyone interested.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-1896658470740568802010-12-06T14:11:21.169-07:002010-12-06T14:11:21.169-07:00JoAnna posted this in another post, from Janet Smi...JoAnna posted this in another post, from Janet Smith: <br /><br /><i>Pope John Paul II has very profound and beautiful things to say about the meaning of sexual intercourse and I can only give you the briefest of descriptions of it here. He says that the sexual act was meant to be an act of total self-giving. You want to give everything you've got to someone you love. And when you're withholding your fertility, you're withholding something that belongs in the sexual act, something that actually belongs there. To withhold it means that you're not giving of yourself completely. I heard someone compare contraceptives to someone who says, "You know, you're having a bad hair day. Would you mind putting a paper bag over your head? You know, I want to make love to you, but I can't stand looking at that hair. It's driving me crazy." That's what a condom is and that's what a contraceptive is. It says, "I love you but I don't want a very important part of yourself here, something that actually belongs in this act." </i>Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-46366840177414184282010-12-06T14:05:29.053-07:002010-12-06T14:05:29.053-07:00I can understand that one would have no difference...I can understand that one would have no difference in emotion or physical feeling between having sex with or without a condom. But nonetheless, a physical barrier is, in reality, there. Putting on shields for "protection... are you going into battle or making love? ;)<br /><br />It also changes the very nature of the marital act, rendering it purposely sterilized. <br /><br />Obviously, the culture does not mind changing the nature of sex. I would argue that it has been catastrophic for how we understand marriage, sex and children.<br /><br />Thanks for the clarity!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-82027380810562880072010-12-06T11:26:02.401-07:002010-12-06T11:26:02.401-07:00If it were me, I would continue to have sex with m...If it were me, I would continue to have sex with my HIV infected husband, of course using the best condoms on the market.<br />(something your chastity.com article didn't mention was that 7 out 20 condoms tested earned PERFECT scores in the consumer reports testing (do you know how difficult it is to earn a perfect consumer report rating??)...granted, not perfect, but i'd take that risk<br /><br />http://pressroom.consumerreports.org/pressroom/2009/11/consumer-reports-health-seven-of-20-condoms-tested-earn-perfect-score.html)<br /><br />If I were the husband, I would obviously not jump in right away nor assume that we would be sexually active, but rather defer to my wife and go with whatever she chose, as it her choice.<br /><br />If I were the mother, I would simply tell my daughter what I would do.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Yes, Planned Parenthood isn't perfect. Far from it in fact. But that doesn't change the fact that some condoms are, in fact, quite effective against the transmission of HIV.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />And to answer your clarifying question, however you define unitive. I was just trying to use your vocabulary.<br /><br />To me, I don't find that I am any more emotionally united with my husband when we have sex with vs. without a condom.<br />I also don't find the "physical barrier" issue to be of any concern whatsoever. Yes, there is a literal barrier between my husband and myself (the one that is keeping us from becoming pregnant...thank you barrier!), but I liken it to hugging my husband with or without a sweater on. Not a noticeable difference there, physically.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-45670691915436830172010-12-05T21:47:04.107-07:002010-12-05T21:47:04.107-07:00And you would go so far as to say that sex with a ...<i>And you would go so far as to say that sex with a condom is so "divisive" that it is less unitive than no sex at all?</i><br /><br />Clarifying question: Do you mean emotionally or physically?Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-24424147021281063832010-12-05T21:30:22.581-07:002010-12-05T21:30:22.581-07:00Yes, I understand that we will not convince each o...Yes, I understand that we will not convince each other. <br /><br />I do have a question: Would you tell your daughter to have sex with condoms over her lifetime with her HIV infected husband? Knowing that even in a "consistent and correct" usage, she will be risking infection? <br /><br />And, if you were that husband, would you put your wife at that risk? Just asking.<br /><br />Even adults who are competent and mature have condom mishaps, breaks and slippage (don't ask me how I know... ;) ). It's pretty common. And then there are the defective condoms, such as Planned Parenthood is wont to pass along to its customers:<br /><br />"In its February 2005 edition, Consumer Reports surveyed twenty-three different types of condoms to measure their effectiveness. In last place were condoms made by Planned Parenthood, with a failure rate of fifteen percent! One of their brands received the equivalent grade of an "F" in the two standards measured: reliability and strength. "<br /><br />http://www.chastity.com/chastity-qa/birth-control/abortion/whats-so-bad-about-planne<br /><br />More in a minute....Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-40424177642475663492010-12-05T20:50:13.237-07:002010-12-05T20:50:13.237-07:00http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm
...http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm<br /><br />http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3127299.html#2a<br /><br />http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/AIDS/HIV.html<br /><br />By the way, it does not use the numbers (3 out of every 1000, .06%, or 6 out of 10000). I did the math myself:<br />The chance of contracting HIV in an act of intercourse is .3%. Condoms are 80% (according to the article they are 86%, but said that it could be as low as 60% and as high as 96%, so i averaged to 80%) effective at preventing the transmission of HIV.<br />.3% x .8 = .24% of the time the partner would NOT contract HIV (the times the condom is effective)<br />1 - .24% = .06% transmission rate per act of intercourse with an infected partner<br /><br />And you would go so far as to say that sex with a condom is so "divisive" that it is less unitive than no sex at all?<br /><br /><br />And the CDC article cites that the condom use is "consistent and correct."<br />All the more reason to teach people how to use them (they are tremendously more effective when used properly, as you know, I'm sure), IMHO.<br /><br /><br />I'm fully aware that I will never convince you of any of this.<br />Just putting it out thereAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-83980217324581728642010-12-05T19:27:15.652-07:002010-12-05T19:27:15.652-07:00*divisive*divisiveLeila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-14425756636520722952010-12-05T19:26:31.466-07:002010-12-05T19:26:31.466-07:00PS: Sex with a condom is not unitive. Condoms ar...PS: Sex with a condom is not unitive. Condoms are literally putting a barrier between husband and wife. Not unitive. Divided.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-8266130251678441042010-12-05T19:25:07.644-07:002010-12-05T19:25:07.644-07:00I'd rather take the odds of not playing Russia...I'd rather take the odds of not playing Russian Roulette. <br /><br />Could you provide the link to the CDC on that issue? I'm not a scientist, so go slow with me. 10,000 what? Acts of intercourse? People? And, is it typical use or perfect use?<br /><br />It is very sad, indeed. Many things in life are sad. It is sad that illness and death happen, and any number of other things. It's a fallen world.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-72564248542630483062010-12-05T19:07:01.177-07:002010-12-05T19:07:01.177-07:00Also, I find it a bit sad that you would expect th...Also, I find it a bit sad that you would expect this man to never marry, simply because he is HIV positive (speaking of the situation in which the marriage was not consummated)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-51367371106303903802010-12-05T19:00:28.070-07:002010-12-05T19:00:28.070-07:00Very well
I think the only thing I might add is t...Very well<br /><br />I think the only thing I might add is that this might be one of the situations in which an anti-contraceptive viewpoint would NOT allow for the most unitive sex possible (being that it does not allow for sex at all).<br /><br />Transmission rate of HIV without a condom: 0.3% (3 out of every 1,000)<br />Transmission rate of HIV with a condom: .06% (6 out of every 10,000)<br />(Source: CDC)<br /><br />I'd much rather take those oddsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-72519670170046757442010-12-05T17:04:18.949-07:002010-12-05T17:04:18.949-07:00Anonymous,
If not consummated: Annulment (easy f...Anonymous,<br /><br />If <i>not</i> consummated: Annulment (easy for both civil and religious marriages).<br /><br />If consummated, that's a sad story. First, she's already been exposed to HIV. If she is prudent, she will not subject herself to further exposure and live as brother and sister with him. If he loves her, he would never put her at risk.... Think about it: Fifty years of marriage, 10,000 exposures to HIV via sex, with an unreliable piece of latex. If that latex shield gives out at the normal rate of condom failure, that's basically playing Russian Roulette with his wife. Would he want that? Would she? Of course, morally, they cannot use condoms anyway.<br /><br />It's like if a couple got married and the man was in a horrible accident on their honeymoon. He was paralyzed and brain damaged. The vows were "in sickness and in health, till death do us part." What is the Christian view of marriage? There is no reasonable way to have marital relations. Does she leave and have affairs with others? Does she divorce him? Or does she live faithfully with him, without sex?<br /><br />The culture says that the latter is unthinkable (don't people, like, <i>explode</i> or something without sex??). Christianity says that sacrifice and love are basically synonymous.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-9523896388177258482010-12-05T10:07:52.867-07:002010-12-05T10:07:52.867-07:00I'd like to hear your answer for both situatio...I'd like to hear your answer for both situations (consummated or not consummated).<br /><br />And yes, he might have begun to show symptoms, but I imagine that someone who has neither been sexually active nor used drugs would probably not have been tested for HIV in the past.<br /><br />If it helps, we could say, instead, that he accidentally contracted it during a blood transfusion or some other (unlikely, but possible) morally licit way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-35156586154763596052010-12-05T09:50:51.733-07:002010-12-05T09:50:51.733-07:00Need one more bit of info: Have they already consu...Need one more bit of info: Have they already consummated the marriage?<br /><br />(And, wouldn't HIV turn up years before, if he contracted it at birth?)Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-27902010141266785482010-12-05T08:38:16.628-07:002010-12-05T08:38:16.628-07:00Okay good--I'm with you there.
Now let's ...Okay good--I'm with you there.<br /><br />Now let's change it up a bit. The week before the wedding, the groom-to-be is feeling a bit under the weather and goes to the doctor for some routine bloodwork.<br />Hours after the wedding ceremony, he receives a phone call from his doctor informing him that he is HIV positive. (Let's keep the fact that he contracted it at birth, to avoid clouding this scenario with him obtaining it in a morally illicit way)<br /><br />What should she do now, hours after promising to love this man in sickness and in health til death do them part?<br /><br />-qqAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-32070661204854298522010-12-04T21:50:03.340-07:002010-12-04T21:50:03.340-07:00My advice to her:
"Your new husband tells yo...My advice to her:<br /><br />"Your new husband tells you <i>on your wedding day</i> that he has a deadly, incurable disease, that you can never have children together and that you have a serious risk of contacting said disease? He tells you <i>today</i>? He's not a man, he's a jerk. And since he perpetrated a fraud on you, that is grounds for an easy annulment, both civil and religious! Run as fast as you can."Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-27388155200075235392010-12-04T20:04:12.009-07:002010-12-04T20:04:12.009-07:00A very specific scenario that I'd like to hear...A very specific scenario that I'd like to hear your opinion on:<br /><br />It is your hypothetical daughter's wedding day, and she has just married a wonderful man whom you very much like.<br />You're thrilled and excited for her.<br />Then you find your daughter in tears. Her new husband has just given her very bad news. In the womb, he contracted HIV from his HIV-positive mother, and he has lived with it all of his life. He did not procure this disease from any immoral act (drug use or promiscuity), but it was rather a result of terrible misfortune.<br /><br />What is your advice for your daughter? <br />Her options seem to be:<br />- divorce this man<br />- continue the marriage she just entered into, but refuse to conjugate the marriage to protect herself, deciding on a life of celibacy for her and her husband<br />- conjugate the marriage, but use a condom to protect herself from contracting HIV<br /><br />I have a feeling I know what your answer will be, but I'm still curious to hear your response.<br /><br />-quick questionAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-31949268674779360752010-11-24T17:13:19.682-07:002010-11-24T17:13:19.682-07:00JoAnn, that Daily Mail website also has an article...JoAnn, that Daily Mail website also has an article saying that there is a cure for Alzheimer's disease, which isn't true. So, I think they may be like the Onion newspaper. May want to look into how valid the stories in general are on a website.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-42179665411498177862010-11-02T09:27:55.090-07:002010-11-02T09:27:55.090-07:00Paul, if you are saying that abstinence before mar...Paul, if you are saying that abstinence before marriage and monogamy after marriage will not end the AIDS crisis (not eradicate the virus, but end the <i>crisis</i> as it stands), then you are right that it's not worth the time to dialogue and we need to move to another topic. We've reached a point of clarity as to what we both believe, and that is what I aim for.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-36875471004525026632010-11-02T09:20:23.025-07:002010-11-02T09:20:23.025-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Paul Rimmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11212220645183007323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-77148724431144317762010-11-02T09:06:10.355-07:002010-11-02T09:06:10.355-07:00Mai, I sincerely look forward to what you find in ...Mai, I sincerely look forward to what you find in reading the book. Let me know; I'm truly interested.<br /><br />And, if it can help answer my questions in my most recent comment, I would be grateful.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-82777938368596157112010-11-02T03:51:36.996-07:002010-11-02T03:51:36.996-07:00This is the point. Catholics (and other god-lovers...This is the point. Catholics (and other god-lovers) do believe that about secular humanists - that we either believe that there is an objective truth outside of us (i.e. God) or we must be moral relativists. My argument is that there is a middle area, where I live. It's a framing problem for both sides - how to define the middle area - for a long time (much longer than I've been thinking about it). <br /><br />THere is a new book that I have brought up before, but didn't know much about. I just bought it over the weekend, though, and am interested to start in on it. It's called "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris, and he is taking a huge break from all of the other secular humanists (moral athiests?) and is embracing the phrase "objective truth" for scientists. <br /><br />Our definition of objective truth does not involve God (Harris writes), and rather involves (I think) the scientific-like testing, iterative, morality-may-change-over-centuries concepts that I've been trying to explain (which Catholics think make me a moral relativist). Without having read his book, I think the point is that we agree with the concept of "objective truth" as long as we are allowed to evaluate it, and as long as some otherworldly being that we can't even prove exists is the one "telling" us about it.<br /><br />Like I said, I haven't read the book yet, but have read reviews and some essays on the topic by this author. This book is being embraced by a number of prominent atheist thinkers, even those who have been against the concept of "objective truth" for atheists. So likely I will too - I don't profess to be an original thinker about such high-level philosophy.MaiZekehttp://hameno.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-46420423458179928652010-11-01T16:18:07.544-07:002010-11-01T16:18:07.544-07:00Mai, you said: "On this point, I'm all fo...Mai, you said: "On this point, I'm all for the people who told a different society to change their actions because we think what they are doing is morally wrong."<br /><br />I have to ask, why? Why on this point and not others?<br /><br />You also said: "Secular humanists actually do think that some things are right and some things are wrong, regardless of what a society decides - Ugandan killing/imprisoning of homosexuals is a case in point. We think about how to define right or wrong, as opposed to being 'told' it by some otherworldly being."<br /><br />Again, I am confused. Your idea of "right and wrong" comes from within your own brain, right? So, how is that different from your opinion? What is the difference between truth and opinion? Can you define each?<br /><br />Also, if you believe that some truths are objectively right or wrong, then you are not a moral relativist. But to say that implies that truth is outside of you, above you, in spite of you. Otherwise, truth that comes from within you is simply your own conclusion, your own belief, your own opinion. How can it be otherwise? <br /><br />I think there is a conflict in your philosophy. I mean that sincerely, not arrogantly.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-37232365546135115862010-11-01T15:50:31.631-07:002010-11-01T15:50:31.631-07:00Paul,
Here's the truth: If people lived acco...Paul,<br /><br />Here's the truth: If people lived according to the Church's teaching (sex only in monogamous marriage), the AIDS crisis would disappear. If people use condoms to reduce the risk of promiscuous sex, they will still get lots and lots of AIDS (as we are seeing). Why would the Church ever want to lie to folks and say that condom use makes illicit sex "safe" when it clearly does not?<br /><br />Here is an article which may interest you:<br /><br />http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0079.html<br /><br />If condom users are perfect in their use, there is still a 10% failure rate. Is that good enough for your child, let's say? If your child could contract and incurable, deadly disease 10% of the time using a "safety device" would you still promote the "safety device"? Sorry, that's not good enough for someone I love. You?Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.com