Cardinal Daneels, Condoms, and Double Effect

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread
Here's a list of news coverage.

And so ends the papability of a beleagured Belgian Cardinal.

-- Skoo (anonymous@God.bless), January 15, 2004

Answers

Response to Cardinal Daneels, condoms, and Double Effect

I doubt that this ends his chances of being the next pope. Nothing surprises me about the Novus Ordo Church anymore. Either way, the fact that a prince of the Church could take such a position is bad enough. This calls for an immediate public rebuke by John Paul II. But we all know that it will never come.

This is what happens when you overthrow tradition and embrace modernism.

-- The Sane Trad (sanetrad@yahoo.com), January 15, 2004.

Response to Cardinal Daneels, condoms, and Double Effect

OK, some reflection on this.

The Cardinal says: "When someone is seropositive and his partner says: I want to have sexual relations with you -- he doesn't have to do that, if you ask me -- but when he does, he has to use a condom in order not to disobey the commandment condemning murder, in addition to breaking the commandment which forbids adultery. This (the use of condoms) comes down to protecting yourself in a preventive manner against a disease or death, (it) cannot be entirely morally judged in the same manner as a pure way of birth limitation."

There are three issues. First, no one in the Catholic moral tradition has ever begun a moral teaching with the words, "if you're already going to do X evil act (ex: fornication), then do Y, too." The Cardinal never specified that the sex act was between married couples- -the implication is that he is addressing everyone who is 'having sex anyway.' This is disfunctional from the very beginning. Nobody who flouts chastity can justify themselves by merely altering their sin. They must abandon it and they must be called to abandon it.

Some might point to Just War theory as a counter-example. War is bad, but it is justified so long as we do X, Y, and Z. This is a poor analogy. The Just War rules include preconditions, such as 'last resort' and 'self defense'. Adultery cannot be justified the same way--or at all.

The second problem is that people are suggesting that the Double Effect applies. It might for married couples, but definitely not for anybody else. See this summary of the doctrine of Double Effect. The rules are:

  1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
  2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may merely permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect, he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
  3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words, the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise, the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
  4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect. In forming this decision many factors must be weighed and compared, with care and prudence proportionate to the importance of the case. Thus, an effect that benefits or harms society generally has more weight than one that affects only an individual; an effect sure to occur deserves greater consideration than one that is only probable; an effect of a moral nature has greater importance than one that deals only with material things.
The argument would go: Daneels never told anyone to use a condom as a contraceptive (he said, "[it] cannot be entirely morally judged in the same manner as a pure way of birth limitation")only as a prophylactic (protection against disease). Contraception is not an intended effect. The intended effect is saving a life.

I hope people here can see why Daneels is very persuasive, even from an orthodox point of view. There is a valid distinction between condoms and contraception. Thus:

  1. The act (simply wearing a condom) is morally indifferent. The act of protecting a life is morally good.
  2. The agent does not will contraception.
  3. The good effect (life saving) comes equally directly as the bad effect (contraception).
  4. The good effect (life saving) is very desireable.
The problem is one big fat fact that this argument ignores: from the Double Effect summary, "If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect, he should do so." Using condoms to "protect lives" ignores the 2nd rule. Daneels completely ignores the fact that the best, only gauranteed, and morally simple way to save lives is chastity, and there are no short-cuts. The third problem is the question of married couples, when one spouse has AIDs. If they have sex without a condom, the bad effect is death. Daneels is wrong to say that someone would "disobey the commandment condemning murder" because, according to Double Effect, the death is not intended and there is no disobedience. The analysis is more complex: Daneels would be wrong to say that the first scenario implies murder. It does not. Further, he does not take the third option seriously enough. It is certainly the least complicated of the three. However, the second scenario is complicated. Any thoughts?

-- Skoo (anonymous@God.bless), January 15, 2004.

Response to Cardinal Daneels, condoms, and Double Effect

We were discussing this on another board I'm on. I personally feel that if one member of a married couple contracts HIV, then the couple should use a condom but abstain during fertile times, so that the condom isn't being used as contraception.

-- AVC (littleflower1976@yahoo.com), January 15, 2004.

Response to Cardinal Daneels, condoms, and Double Effect

Um, wouldn't it just be simpler to say that it is a mortal sin for anyone who knows or suspects that he/she has AIDS to have sex, period? It doesn't matter whether or not you are married to your partner. It doesn't matter whether or not you use a condom. It's a mortal sin to have sex if you have AIDS. Period.

Putting aside the issue of contraception, it's a mortal sin to have sex if you have AIDS because there is always the risk of infecting your partner no matter what protective measures you use. And taking that risk is itself a mortal sin.

-- The Sane Trad (sanetrad@yahoo.com), January 15, 2004.

Response to Cardinal Daneels, condoms, and Double Effect

I personally feel that if one member of a married couple contracts HIV, then the couple should use a condom

Using a condom to stop HIV is like using a window screen for protection against a fire hose.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 15, 2004.

Response to Cardinal Daneels, condoms, and Double Effect

something that the cardinal does not understand about morality... and at no personal slight to him, because he has be influenced by modernism and the relativistic crap out there today. remember, however, that the papacy is STILL guarded by God's will, and the pope who is chosen will be the pope that God wills. I merely hope it is not this man.

I'll say the same thing that i've said before, though... there is no gray area when it comes to sin. because contraception would prevent abortion DOES NOT make it a shady area of possible acceptability. instead there is only one sinless solution: no adultery and no abortions. only ONE answer. right and wrong.

its easy to understand despite the confusion if you consider lying. When one lies, they often have to tell more lies in order not to be 'found out.' does the fact that if they are found out it might hurt their friendships/families make lying any more an acceptable practice? NO!!! nor does the fact that they MIGHT get pregnant and MIGHT decide to sin in having an abortion make a condom a more acceptable behavior. its merely a matter of one sin (death via abortion) or another (death via blocking God's intended fertilization) that are both still WRONG.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 15, 2004.

Response to Cardinal Daneels, condoms, and Double Effect

HIV is actually a more difficult disease to catch than many people think. One of my college profs, who researched AIDS extensively, said that if you took a syringe of blood from an infected person and stuck it in your own arm -- the MOST direct way of spreading HIV -- your chances of contracting it are still only 50 percent.

Marriage is meant to incorporate sexuality. If my husband, god forbid, were to get HIV somehow, I would still happily make love to him with a condom, provided we were not using it for contraceptive purposes.

-- AVC (littleflower1976@yahoo.com), January 15, 2004.

Response to Cardinal Daneels, condoms, and Double Effect

Engaging in sex knowing you have a transmittable disease is like asking your partner to play russian roulette. The gun may have 5,10,100, or even 100,000 chambers and only one bullet but the risk of death remains very real. To ask your partner to satisfy your needs in this case is selfish and I would even say not love.

The greatest lie we have in our culture is that sex=love. This equation is involved in the idea of taking your boy(girl)friend out for a test drive. It also goes against the idea of "in sickness and in health" so central to marriage. If two people in marriage feel the world revolves around them they are in trouble. One must and both may be wrong. Sacrifice for one another is the key. To ask one partner to risk their life for sexual pleasure is taking that a bit far.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), January 15, 2004.

Response to Cardinal Daneels, condoms, and Double Effect

I like the Russian roulette analogy. Most of us won't want to do a 1 in 6 chance of killing ourselves with a revolver. A 2 chamber revolver if it would exist, would be a terrible risk. Maybe your professor likes Russian roulette, but I think he just didn't think this through.

In Christ,
Bill Nelson

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 15, 2004.

Response to Cardinal Daneels, condoms, and Double Effect

So I'm wondering what you two would do if your wife contracted HIV. You would NEVER have relations with her again, the rest of your lives?

-- AVC (littleflower1976@yahoo.com), January 15, 2004.

Response to Cardinal Daneels, condoms, and Double Effect

OK, some reflection on this.

Cardinal Daneels said: "When someone is seropositive and his partner says: I want to have sexual relations with you -- he doesn't have to do that, if you ask me -- but when he does, he has to use a condom in order not to disobey the commandment condemning murder, in addition to breaking the commandment which forbids adultery. This (the use of condoms) comes down to protecting yourself in a preventive manner against a disease or death, (it) cannot be entirely morally judged in the same manner as a pure way of birth limitation."

[Note: a Dutch spreaking friend of mine has told me that this is poorly translated. Cardinal Daneels affirms that sex is reserved only to married couples. Here, he only states that one with HIV who has extramarital sex without a condom compounds his sin of adultery with the sin of murder. It is not as radical as the news is making it. The media is misleading.]

There are three issues I think are important. First, it doesn't fit the Catholic moral tradition to begin with the words, "if you're already going to do X evil act (ex: adultery), then also do Y to limit the damage." When the Cardinal does this, his argument seems morally deficient. Somebody who flouts chastity has no further moral options except to return to it. It is misguided (to say the least) to treat that person as if his conversion was not urgently desired and hoped for. That's probably my biggest criticism of the Cardinal right now. If you take the focus off of chastity, Your Excellency, you concede to our opponents that chastity is not the issue. They think that Church teaching is the problem. However, it is the only solution. To quote Chesterton, “Orthodoxy was not tried and found wanting; it was found difficult and never tried.” That is the proper battle for a Cardinal to fight, not capitulating to a post-modern youth culture.

However, one may question whether this is about morality at all— Daneels is dealing with a diocese where many people fornicate like they shake hands, and he’s weighing the difference between people with HIV vs. the same people without it. It sounds very reasonable. However, morality aside, one asks whether any hot-blooded Belgian is going to switch to using condoms just because Cardinal Daneels said so (or perhaps the young swingers were actually scrupulous condom- avoiders before this 'correction' by their local shepherd).

The second issue is that many articles are suggesting that the Aquinas' Double Effect applies. In other words, condoms have two effects: they are prophylactic and prevent disease (which is good) and they prevent conception (which is bad). Daneels argues that, when people commit adultery, they have to use condoms for their protection from HIV. The contraception is an unintended effect. Here is a summary of the doctrine of Double Effect. The rules are:

  1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
  2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may merely permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect, he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
  3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words, the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise, the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
  4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect. In forming this decision many factors must be weighed and compared, with care and prudence proportionate to the importance of the case. Thus, an effect that benefits or harms society generally has more weight than one that affects only an individual; an effect sure to occur deserves greater consideration than one that is only probable; an effect of a moral nature has greater importance than one that deals only with material things.
I hope people here can see Cardinal Daneels' point, which is really not very radical. It goes like this:

  1. The act (simply wearing a condom) is morally indifferent. The act of protecting a life is morally good.
  2. The agent does not will contraception.
  3. The good effect (life saving) comes equally directly as the bad effect (contraception).
  4. The good effect (life saving) is very desireable.
The mistake here is that the 2nd rule states, "If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect, he should do so." Thus, using condoms to protect lives in an adulterous union does not justify them. Thus, with extra-marital sex, either you compound your adultery with murder (like Daneels says) or you compound your adultery with artificial contraception. Neither option is very acceptable. The key here is that nobody is forcing sex upon you. Daneels is too quiet about fact that the best, only gauranteed, and morally simple way to save lives is chastity, and there are no short-cuts.

The third issue is the question of married couples, when one spouse has HIV. If they have sex without a condom, the bad effect is death. Daneels is not quite right to say that someone would "disobey the commandment condemning murder." If unprotected sex within a marriage is justified by the Double Effect, the unintended disease is not murder. The analysis is much more complex, especially for a married couple. A quick analysis might look like this:

Does the first scenario constitute "murder" or unjustly endangering life? It certainly seems so. True, the healthy spouse might willingly risk their own life in full knowledge of the circumstances. However, what about HIV-born children? Should the couple abstain for fear of conceiving? Then what about full openness to life? Oi~ This one's prickly. The third option should be a serious consideration. It might even be the only just one.

However, I believe the second scenario definitely needs to be examined. Double Effect rule #4--does the good of prophylacized marital sex compensate for the evil of contraception? I am convinced that this is not an easy question, but I am leaning towards "yes". Contraception is intrinsically evil, but that does not mean that somebody sprinkled magic "evil dust" on all condoms. Intentional contraception implies a closedness to new life and a desire for control over creation by hijacking the human body. However, when contraception is the unintended result of a prophylactic, it does not imply this at all. A Catholic couple in this situation could conceivably pray for children. Willing contraceivers could not.

Nevertheless, the Russian Roulette thing here is pretty important. We're not only talking about adults here but children. That raises the stakes quite a bit, consenting adults or not.

-- Skoo (anonymous@God.bless), January 15, 2004.

Response to Cardinal Daneels, condoms, and Double Effect

Sorry--the above message is NOT A DUPLICATE. It is a revision. I have to take back some of the things I said in the first version because of some new information and insights.

-- Skoo (anonymous@God.bless), January 15, 2004.

Response to Cardinal Daneels, condoms, and Double Effect

I'm sorry AVC, I hadn't seen your first response in this thread. That's clever though--I hadn't thought of it.

-- Skoo (anonymous@God.bless), January 15, 2004.

Response to Cardinal Daneels, condoms, and Double Effect

I think that this "co rrected" Reuters article is one of the best of them at the moment.

For that matter, I would like to change the title of this thread, if possible. It should be called:

"Cardinal Daneels, condoms, and Double Effect"

-- Skoo (anonymous@God.bless), January 15, 2004.

Response to Cardinal Daneels, condoms, and Double Effect

Is Cardinal Daneels schismatic?

-- jake (j@k.e), January 15, 2004.

Response to Cardinal Daneels, condoms, and Double Effect

Dear AVC,

Knowing my wife, she would never ask under the circumstances. It would also be totally irresponsible for me to risk my health and life and leave 3 orphans behind. I dont sky dive or bungie jump for the same reasons.

I once talked to my wife about a situation that could happen. What if I was paralyzed in an accident? Should I sexually gratify her? She said that she would not want or expect that (she is also very very far from frigid). The idea of my not being able to "satisfy" my wife in this hypothetical situation was worse than the thought of my own disability. I think you are obviously a very giving person AVC and that is what would make this HIV question a toughie. The Church stance on this is clear however and I hope I would follow it.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), January 15, 2004.

Response to Cardinal Daneels, condoms, and Double Effect

David F, perhaps I could be misundertanding you here but, to use your example, are you saying the Church forbids a partner who is physically unable to have intercourse from sexually gratifying their spouse in other ways? If this is so, can you quote a Church teaching that dictates this?

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), January 15, 2004.

Response to Cardinal Daneels, condoms, and Double Effect

Ed,

I am currently a catechumen so I have crammed my study into just the past few months and I do not profess to be a great apologist. That being said the Church clearly states that all sexual acts need to be between validly married spouses and must involve unification AND procreation. The Catechism and Tradition do not as far as I can tell address every hypothetical directly but it is clear that this sex act would not meet the procreative requirements.

I have wrestled with a number of these hypotheticals. As a non- Catholic (until the Easter vigil) I find many doctrines of the Church to be very alien to me but when I put my emotions aside the Church's teaching always rings true. The Church is infinitely fair when you think about it. If homosexuality is a sin (non procreative) then why should people that are married be able to engage in the same non-procreative activities. If God forbid my wife lost her ability to have coitus why would other nonprocreative practices now be OK.

I will defer to the much more learned members of this forum to correct me if I am wrong.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), January 15, 2004.

But married people who are infertile aren't forbidden from having relations. So having marital intercourse with no (or at least minimal) possiblity of conception is OK at least under certain circumstances.

-- AVC (sanveann@yahoo.com), January 15, 2004.
Yes, if the lack of procreative potential is due to "an act of God", and not any direct act of the couple. For the same reason, it is right and proper for older married couples who are past their fertile years to continue marital relations as they wish.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 15, 2004.
Yet, we have a number of examples in Scripture of the potential (although slight) still being present for conception with an older couple.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 15, 2004.

David F, I agree with AVC and with Paul. When a couple finds themselves incapable of fulfilling God's law through no fault of their own then I beleive the Church teaches that God does not hold them accountable. By the way, welcome to the faith!

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), January 16, 2004.
I agree with all that you have said Paul and AVC. I used poor choices of words when I said nonprocreative acts. In my hypothetical situations of a paralyzed man or a woman without the ability to engage in coitus (loss of a vagina due to cancer trauma etc) the sex acts they could do would not only be nonprocreative but would be sodomy. Sodomy would not be permitted despite these people being injured through no fault of their own. Or am I wrong?

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), January 16, 2004.
Supposedly now there were a couple of documents from the Pontifical Council for the Family, one in 2000 and another in 2003, which dealt with the issue of condoms as prophylactics within families where one spouse has AIDs. I can't find them on vatican.va. It's possible they were merely published in L'Osservatore Romano. Or not, I don't know.

Here is an article I found when I was looking for those documents. It gives some information about the debates going on inside the Vatican. Be sure and see the Ratzinger quote.

Cardinal Daneels did not contradict Humanae Vitae. He did not say that adultery + condoms is a valid option. On the contrary, he said that sex is only valid in the context of marriage.

His biggest mistake was to try and tell confirmed adulterers what to do. Now, the perception is that he recognizes the legitimacy of prophylactic adultery. This is false. Cardinal Daneels' warning to adulterers to use condoms is (1) morally irrelevant, since their only moral option is to return to chastity, (2) practically useless, since it won't likely save any lives, and (3) deathly misleading, since some adulters might think they're "OK" with the Cardinal when they use condoms.

It's too simplistic just to say about adulterers, "well, it's not as bad if they use a condom." Condom or not, pill or not, the only thing for a Churchman to tell adulterers is that they are in a bad place and they need to leave.

-- Skoo (anonymous@God.bless), January 16, 2004.

the only thing for a Churchman to tell adulterers is that they are in a bad place and they need to leave.

Uphold the constant teaching of the Church and condemn the corresponding error.

In other words, do his job.

What has the Vatican had to say about the whole affair (pardon the pun)?

-- jake (j@k.e), January 16, 2004.

Oh yeah, there's another issue. Africa. Africa is a very different situation. To put it in the words of a friend of mine, "All of the Church problems in the West arise from individualism--people think they have inalienable rights. However, all the Church's problems in Africa arise from tribalism." The combination of polygamous marriages and complete lack of women's rights--even in Catholic societies--makes for a very different situation with condoms.

Some things to note:



-- Skoo (anonymous@God.bless), January 16, 2004.
Hi Jake,

The Vatican hasn't said anything yet. Daneels wasn't talking about married people, so the Vatican might have nothing to say. There is simply no Church teaching about whether adulterers should use condoms. It's a silly question. The only thing the Vatican could say is that adulterers are in a bad position whether they use condoms or not.

Daneels also said this (albeit far too weakly).

The bare statement--that HIV positive adulterers who don't use condoms are more evil than those who do--is undeniable to any reasonable person. But Daneels was foolish for saying it the way he did, when he did.

-- Skoo (anonymous@God.bless), January 16, 2004.

The only thing the Vatican could say is that adulterers are in a bad position whether they use condoms or not.

How about something along the lines of: "Adultery and contraception are both mortal sins, and people with infectious diseases should live a life of celibacy, since any sexual activity, either promiscuous or within marriage, could involve risking the life and / or health of a non-infected person. Further, Carinal Daneels' statements in this regard are not in keeping with the moral teaching of the Church. He has been suspended from his priestly ministry until such time as he recants his prior statements and meets peronally with the Holy Father."

I mean, is that unreasonable? Silence from the Vatican can be interpreted as tacit approval. Just my $0.02.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 16, 2004.

There's one important correction to be made. Remember I said that the Daneels quote is a bad translation? That Dutch-speaking friend and I looked at the Dutch transcript. The media is translating it, "he doesn't have to do that [have sex]." In fact, it is much closer to, "for me, it is something which must not be done." And remember, that is after he already stated the Church teaching about sex and marriage beforehand.

The problem with your recommendation, Jake, is that the Cardinal already affirms the first part of your message, and aside from gross imprudence, hasn't actually said anything that contradicts the Church's teaching.

It would be absolutely appropriate for the Church to speak, but it would be even better for Daneels himself to clarify the Church's teaching and correct the media's lies. He does not approve of condoms--how could he, when he clearly stated that extramarital sex is against the teachings of the Church? He only said that an HIV positive who commits adultery without a condom also commits murder. Do you disagree?

The Cardinal's error was one of omission: he neglected to clarify that no unchaste lifestyle is even remotely tolerable. He certainly believes this, but he did not act on it.

-- Skoo (anonymous@God.bless), January 16, 2004.

He only said that an HIV positive who commits adultery without a condom also commits murder. Do you disagree?

I agree with the premise, although the whole issue could be nit- picked to death (i.e., HIV isn't always transmitted when an infected person has intimate contact with a non-infected person, etc). I agree with that much, that a person who knowingly risks infecting someone else is using the virus as a deadly weapon.

I haven't read all there is to read on what he said, but we agree that he was, at a minimum, grossly imprudent, and that it would profit both he and the rest of the Church if he or his superiors would issue a clarificaton.

Whatever the truth is about what he said, it's still a great opportunity to reaffirm Church teaching on these matters. Neither His Eminence nor anyone over him seems willing to do that, and it's lamentable.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 16, 2004.

Agreed; the Church must uphold and re-affirm its teachings. The big "But" here is that people sin, continue to sin and do what they please without regard to what the Church says. In America more than a few Catholics use contraception, go to church and still consider themselves Catholic. I'm not condoning this, just saying thats the way it is.

If the Cardinal's remarks result in someone, in some third world country (steeped in traditions the Church has barely made any inroads in changing) who was planning to ignore Church teaching anyway... but then on second thought uses a condom to protect one of his "wives" and potential offspring from this dread desease, can't this be viewed as a better "real world" outcome than the alternative?

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), January 17, 2004.

I just saw this article which fits into this discussion

Friday, Jan. 16, 2004 12:52 a.m. EST Study: Condoms Failed to Halt AIDS Spread in Africa

Fr. Michael Reilly reports on astonishing new findings that debunk the popular myth that condoms are the best tool we have in the war against AIDS

New data based on the results of massive condom distribution in Africa indicates that condoms have done little if anything to slow the spread of AIDS on the continent, according to Austin Ruse of the Culture of Life Foundation.

In fact, they may even contribute to the spread of HIV because they give people a false sense of security.

Last week, AIDS experts at the Medical Institute for Sexual Health HIV/Pandemic in Washington, D.C., presented data showing a correlation between the availability of condoms and an increase in promiscuity.

"Twenty years into the pandemic there is no evidence that more condoms leads to less AIDS," Dr. Edward C. Green of Harvard’s' Center for Population and Development Studies, told the gathering.

"We are not seeing what we expected: that higher levels of condom availability result in lower HIV prevalence," Green added.

Dr. Norman Hearst of the University of California told the conference that studies of several African nations (Kenya, Botswana) show a link between increased condom sales and rising numbers of HIV infections each year.

Dr. Hearst warned that we are "raising a generation of young people in Africa that believe that condoms will prevent HIV." In reality, condoms tend to fail up to 20 percent of the time, he said.

The condom-based safe-sex propaganda tends to give many a false sense of security – encouraging further promiscuity.

"Having multiple sexual partners drives AIDS epidemics," Dr. Green warned. "If people did not have multiple sex partners, epidemics would not develop or, once developed, be sustained."

"Over a lifetime, it is the number of sexual partners [that matter]. ... Condom levels are found to be non-determining of HIV infection levels," Green added.

In Uganda, on the other hand, a 65 percent decline in casual sex practices has resulted in declines in HIV infection rates, according to statistics cited by Dr. Rand Stoneburner, formerly with the World Health Organization.

By promoting programs touting abstinence and faithfulness, the Ugandan government helped bring about a 75 percent decline in HIV prevalence in the 15-19 age group, 60 percent in those age 20-24, and a 54 percent decline overall by 1998.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), January 17, 2004.

Uganda's program involves both abstinence and condoms. However, I've read in a nother article that condoms are much disliked. In any case, their success is good news and a model for other countries. However, I haven't read anything about the Church in connection with Uganda, which is unfortunate.

-- Skoo (anonymous@God.bless), January 18, 2004.
Contradictions , I see ??

- A married may have only sex to get childeren !!

- A married couple , one of them has aids , so they need use a condom , but that doesn't fit , cause it prevents to make kids !! __ Condoms are forbidden by the RCC , but if they don't use it , the wife or man have a big chance to be killed !! __ So , the best solution , no sex for people with aids !! __ But you not only can get aids via sex , but also via a bloodtransfusion and .... !!

You can tell ALL peoples not to use a condom or another anti- conception , but who says they'll listen to you ??

You can tell ALL unmarried peoples not to have sex , but who says they'll listen to you ??

You can tell ALL unmarried peoples not to make kids , but who says they'll listen to you ??

PS: I saw the interview of danneels on that Dutch TV-station , also an interview on a Belgian TV-station !!

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), January 19, 2004.

improvement:

PS: I've seen the interview of danneels on that Dutch TV- station , also an interview on a Belgian TV-station !!

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), January 19, 2004.

You can tell ALL people not to rob banks, who says they will listen.

Telling them not to is still right!

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), January 19, 2004.

As for married couples with an HIV partner . . . One of the problems here is the media generated lie: chastity=insanity/impossibility/unhealthy. No one thinks that chastity is a viable option in marriage for the same reasons they don't think chastity is possible for teens. We are incapable of it or we need sex. This is not true.

Marriage is about love. Sex speaks the language of love. If you love someone then you want to do what is best for them. Having sex with your spouse if you have AIDS is a contradiction and a lie. You are saying 'I love you and want to do what is best for you' at the same time that you are NOT doing what is best for them, risking HIV infection. Adding a little andendum with a condoms does not change this, all you say is, 'I want to do what is best for you but I want sex more, so I will reduce the risks ever so slightly with this piece of latex.' That just isn't loving. To embrace chasity for the sake of another, now that is a loving sacrifice!

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), January 19, 2004.

Skoobouy, your confused next-door neighbor (Cardinal D) was never "papabile." The other cardinals already knew him too well for that to be true.

-- (Vatican@Outsider.com), January 19, 2004.
You can tell ALL people not to rob banks, who says they will listen.

Telling them not to is still right!

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), January 19, 2004.

Telling them not to is still right!

Yes , but who says they'll listen ??

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), January 19, 2004.

"Vatican," I know, I've heard the principle before: "He who walks in [to the conclave] a Pope, walks out a cardinal."

Dan, I agree, and it's important for the Church--especially priests-- to work towards reshaping the current deformed understanding of true love. Nevertheless, whether a married couple with one HIV-positive member should be required to abstain is a question with very painful practical implications.

-- Skoo (anonymous@God.bless), January 20, 2004.

WASHINGTON, February 3, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In the wake of a newly-released Centre for Disease Control (CDC) report on human papilloma virus (HPV), which revealed that condoms are not reliable in preventing the spread of this infection, US President George W. Bush announced a doubling of funding for the abstinence message.

see the article here.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 04, 2004.

The Bishop of Belgium, Cardinal Danneels, has not responded to urgent requests from a family in Thailand for his assistance in recovering a child trafficked to Belgium by an international pedophile ring that included and involved local Belgian officials.

----------------------------------

There was no reply from His Eminence Godfried Cardinal Danneels, Bishop of Belgium, to the following letter, which was sent many times by telefax, airmail and email, since it was first sent on October 29, 2004

Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:25:35 +0000 (GMT) From: Frans Ver Meer Subject: Request for the Church's Help in Rescuing a Child from Kidnappers and Traffickers To: aartsbisdom@kerknet.be

Copy of Letter Van Wezenbekestraat 58 2060 Antwerp FAX: 66 02 651 - 0095 E-mail: dehoof@hotmail.com; fransvermeer@yahoo.com

October 29, 2003

Personal His Eminence Godfried Cardinal Danneels Archbishop of the Diocese of Malines-Brussels Bishop of Belgium and the Military Wollemarkt 15 2800 Malines

Subject: Request for the Church’s Help in Rescuing a Child from Kidnappers and Traffickers

Your Eminence:

The family of a missing child, a boy, hopes that Your Eminence will urge Antwerp city officials to search for the child and assist the family to contact him.

The child was trafficked with his mother by a pedophile and prostitution ring to Belgium. The mother (and only parent) left Belgium without the child long ago.

The child has no relatives or legal guardian in Europe.

The family does not know if the child is alive and, if he is, in what condition and circumstances he is living in.

Officials of the city police, city administration, schools and the prosecuting attorney's office in Antwerp are in conspiracy with kidnappers and traffickers in children to obstruct a family's search for a loved one, a young boy.

Lawyers and the lawyer's association in Antwerp are in conspiracy with the child’s kidnappers and the prosecuting attorney's office, including assistant prosecuting attorneys assigned to the juvenile court, to deny the family legal representation and obstruct due process.

The new mayor of Antwerp, the alderman in charge of the city's district offices, and the acting city police chief oppose the family's efforts to find, contact and recover the child.

The Belgian Prime Minister and the present and previous Ministers of Interior, Justice and Foreign Affairs and the King of the Belgians, who is the head of state, have ignored the family's many requests to urge the police in Antwerp to comply with the law, acknowledge the family's rights and cooperate in the recovery of the child.

The last Ministers of Interior and Justice wrote and peddled false reports about the child. The Prime Minister taunted the family with threats of harm to the child.

All possible legal means of rescuing the child have been fully exhausted several times over. This is well documented.

The child is not better off, as some officials and “NGOs” try to pretend, with his kidnappers than he would be with his family in Thailand. The kidnappers are poor and uneducated, mentally unbalanced, ill-mannered. They live in marginal conditions in the city's worst slums. They are punk hoodlums. They hang out with other social degenerates in the city's lowest dives with prostitutes, homosexuals, pedophiles, pornographers, drug addicts and complicit policemen and city administration officials.

The child has suffered terribly as a result. He is deprived of things most children take for granted: his identity, his family, normal friends, a proper education, sports, hobbies, his mail from home.

Your Eminence has the authority to excommunicate state officials guilty of immoral and criminal behavior.

The family hopes that Your Eminence will consider their predicament and urge Belgian officials to comply with the law, recognize the family’s rights, and cooperate with the family to find and contact the child.

I ask for guidance from Your Eminence in this matter. I look forward to Your Emeninence’s reply.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Georg de Hoof

There was no response to the following letter to His Excellency, the Most Reverend Paul Van Den Berghe, Bishop of the Diocese of Antwerp, sent by telefax # 32 - 03 – 202 - 8431, on Sunday, October 19, 2003. The letter was sent many times by e-mail since then.

-------------------------- To: secretariaat.bisdom.antwerpen@kerknet.be

Van Wesenbekestraat 58 2060 Antwerp Fax: 66 – 02 – 651 - 0095 E-mail: fransvermeer@yahoo.com; dehoof@hotmail.com

Sunday, October 19, 2003

The Reverend Jan Van Dooren Secretariat Diocese of Antwerp Schoenmarkt 2 B-2000 Antwerp

Subject:

Dear Reverend Father,

A family hopes that His Excellency, the Most Reverend Paul Van den Berghe, Bishop of the Diocese of Antwerp, will urge Antwerp city officials to cooperate in the search for a child.

Please ensure that His Excellency receives the attached letter, which describes the situation.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Georg de Hoof

Enclosure

--------------------------

Van Wesenbekestraat 58 2060 Antwerp Fax: 66 – 02 - 651 - 0095 E-mail: dohoof@hotmail.com; fransvermeer@yahoo.com

Sunday, October 19, 2003

His Excellency, the Most Reverend Paul Van Den Berghe Bishop of the Diocese of Antwerp Schoenmarkt 2 B-2000 Antwerp

Subject: The Church can Rescue a Child from Traffickers

Your Excellency,

A family, who is searching for a loved one, a young boy, is turning to the church in the last resort. The family hopes that Your Excellency can urge city officials to cooperate.

An international pedophile and prostitution ring trafficked the child and his mother (and only parent) to Belgium. The mother left Belgium without the child long ago. He has no relatives or legal guardian in Belgium.

The family does not know where the child is or if he is still alive and, if he is, in what condition and circumstances he is in.

The child’s kidnappers are poor and uneducated, mentally unbalanced hoodlums. They live in marginalized conditions in the city's worst slums. They hang out with social degenerates - prostitutes, homosexuals, pedophiles, pimps, pornographers, drug addicts - in the city's lowest dives. They resort to crime to survive. Policemen, city administration officials and representatives of so-called “non- governmental organizations” (“NGOs”) are in complicity with them and cover for them.

The family has received reports that the child is deprived of many basic things. He is underfed and under-clothed. He is denied friends and the pursuit of normal social activities, hobbies and sports. He is denied his rightful identity. His mail is stolen. He is denied a proper education. School officials abuse him and retard him in spite.

The family has received reports that the police took the child from his kidnappers and put him in a parochial school or home for children - and expect payment to reveal his location. The child is not better off, as some officials of the government and “NGOs” would like to claim, with his kidnappers or in the care of a church or the police than he would be with his family.

Officials of the Belgian federal police and the Antwerp city police, city administration, schools and the prosecuting attorney's office, including prosecutors assigned to the juvenile court, are in conspiracy with the child’s kidnappers and traffickers to obstruct the family's search.

Lawyers and the lawyer's association in Antwerp are in conspiracy with the child’s kidnappers and the prosecuting attorney's office to deny the family legal representation and obstruct due process. They repeatedly cheated the family.

The new mayor of Antwerp, the alderman who supervises Antwerp’s district offices, and the acting city police chief oppose the family's efforts to find, contact and recover the child. They have ignored requests for the child’s address and assistance in contacting him. (The mayor of Wijnegem and two aides are in conspiracy with the child’s kidnappers; they claim to know where the child is but they refuse to give the family his address.)

The King of the Belgians, who is the head of state; the Prime Minister; the current and previous Ministers of Interior, Justice and Foreign Affairs have evaded the family’s many requests to order the police in Antwerp to cooperate with the family.

The last Ministers of Interior and Justice and their aides peddled false reports about the child.

The Prime Minister and last Minister of Interior taunted the family with lies and threats.

All possible legal means of rescuing the child have been fully exhausted. (This is well documented.)

Your Excellency can excommunicate officials who display immoral and criminal behavior. They fear Your Excellency’s authority and influence.

The family hopes that Your Excellency will consider their predicament and urge Belgian officials to comply with the law, recognize the family’s rights, and cooperate with the family to find and contact the child.

I look forward to Your Excellency’s reply.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Georg de Hoof

------------------------------------------

There has been no response to four separate requests to the Attorney General of Antwerp, made since August of this year, 2004, for an order to the police to put the child in contact with his family.

-- Georg De Hoof (dehoof@hotmail.com), December 30, 2004.

i lived in antwerp for many years and i use to come often to the van wesenbekestraat,it's known as the chinatown of antwerp

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), December 30, 2004.
and i have my family living there now also(btw china rules,we invented the kungfu):p

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), December 30, 2004.
Moderation questions? read the FAQ